These are things that are defined differently between the two religions. I came to the conclusion that the kind of cleansing and holiness required by God according to Christianity was not possible within the framework of the Christian faith. As I have posted elsewhere, the book of Hebrews proclaims that the superiority of Christianity is based on its ability to overcome sin COMPLETELY, to the point of never needing another sacrifice for as long as you live, by changing one’s nature from that of sinner to that of never-sinning saint. This is echoed by Romans 8:1 , which states that “there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus , WHO WALK ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT AND NOT ACCORDING TO THE FLESH”. IN other words, one who walks accordion to the flesh is condemned. It is only by “walking in the spirit” that one avoids condemnation according to Paul. This is because belief in Jesus leads to indwelling of the holy spirit, which in turn causes one to never sin again, for it is GOD who is “doing the works” ( John 14:10) and not the man. If one is walking according to the spirit,says Paul, it is NOT POSSIBLE to sin!

The reality is that this is an empty and hollow promise, and as such, Christianity has no better answer for sin than Judaism does. In fact, Christianity’s answer is far worse, because sinful people think they are sinless in the eyes of God! In Judaism, we strive and reach for righteousness one decision at a time. But nowhere does Torah/Judaism say or imply that a human being must be COMPLETELY PERFECT to avoid an everlasting burning hell, as does Christianity several times in the New Testament. Nor does Torah say or imply that all men are completely useless, incorrigibly evil, pieces of trash BY NATURE, NOT BY CHOICE as the NT implies.

The bottom line is that Judaism is a religion of salvation by grace and forgiveness. Christianity is a religion of the promise of salvation by human blood sacrifice and by total practical, actual sinlessness ( here and now) by the holy spirit. The first feature is an abomination forbidden by God, the latter feature has been historically proven false in every known case.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

Related

899 Responses to Differences – a letter from Eleazar

Hello
Paul or the NT doesn’t say one never sins again once they believe in Yeshua, he says one is never condemned for sin, ie the sinful nature. The sin nature remains, that’s his point of Romans CH 7.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. ( paraphrase).

Hebrews 10 disagrees with you. And you are taking Paul out of context. In Romans chapters 5-7 he is speaking of the contradictions the unconverted face when walking after the flesh. Chapter 8 is the culmination and the conclusion to 5-7. 8:1 is clear that condemnation does not come to those who walk after the spirit because the spirit cannot sin. Please read Romans 8 and Hebrews in connection with each other.

Hebrews is an apologetic on the supremacy of the one time sacrifice of Jesus. The reason given for its supremacy is that the animal sacrifices of Judaism had to be repeated because the people did not stop sinning:

Hebrew 10:1-4 “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins…”

1- the author calling God a liar, since it was God who ordained a very complex system of both animal and vegetable sacrifices specific to many different situations.
OR
2-is saying blood NEVER did anything, in which case he is double-speaking because the author is already building his case on the text “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. Hebrews 9:22 ( quoting Tanakh out of context)
OR
3- Is saying that the blood of animals functioned as an atoning offering but could not stop people from sinning and thus requiring a new sacrifice over and over again. While the blood of Jesus, a one-time for all time offering, changes the nature of the sinner to a being who no longer needs blood sacrifices.

The answer is #3. We know this because the author says blood of bulls “cannot take away sin”. But since the text has already affirmed that forgiveness is by blood, he can ONLY be referring to removing the sinful nature! To the point where Hebrews10:26-27 gives a grave warning concerning those who still sin after becoming Christians:

“If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and raging fire that will consume all adversaries.…”

Now, you tell me that the sin-nature will be there until the resurrection. If that is true, then how can God give such a warning knowing we will continue to make wrong choices. Also note that it says “NO FURTHER SACRIFICE REMAINS”.

Eleazar,
If I understand correctly, you authored “The Trinity Chronicles” which begins with an interesting story about Isaac Cline and his disastrous decisions concerning the Galveston hurricane in the year 1900.

Isaac Cline evidently came to an incorrect conclusion because he based his actions on his own opinions and emotions rather than facts consistent with the evidence.

Likewise, I see some similarities when reading phrases like “sin nature”, and “walking in the Spirit”, and “pieces of trash”, etc– all of which can be interpreted in various ways based on prior bad experience, weak doctrinal foundation, or inconsistent theology renderings between the Tanakh and BC/NT…
_______________________________

Your essay is important because some of the concepts you describe represent a Gentile worldview rather than one of a first century Jewish author [hence, the many poor or false interpretations of the Book of Hebrews]…

We may disagree upon matters of interpretation– but that would be no different than disagreement among Orthodox Rabbis when interpreting Tanakh.
_______________________________

So, at this time I would like to pose one question…

Q: Should you rely “solely” upon the outdated KJV rendering of Romans 8:1 when the other major, modern versions [based on the oldest and best Greek texts] leave off the last phrase and read simply, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”?
________________________________

KAVI, I see you’ve resorted to the tactic of suggesting an emotional motivation over a discussing and refuting the substance of the argument. As such I will ignore your amateur psychological evaluation of my motivation from here on and respond to your substance only.

Regardless of which version of Romans 8:1 one uses it does not change the doctrine. Regardless, Romans 8:1 KJV is not about the translation, but about the source document. Every version based on the Received Text will render Romans 8:1 in a similar way. We need not change the subject to manuscripts because it changes nothing. Regardless, I do not and have never made a conclusion based on a single sentence.

Hebrews 10 is of monumental importance to an understanding of the Christian faith, since it was written to answer the questions, “How does the blood of Jesus and belief in him save anyone?” and “Why didn’t the blood of bulls and goats provide salvation?” Christianity is based on the idea that “believing in Jesus saves you” and “Jesus died to take away our sins”. Hebrews is the explanation of how. Therefore, if the how is proven wrong, then the premise of belief in, and “acceptance of” Jesus as one’s only method of salvation is useless.

Hello
Just to add something on one of your comments, you stated that the purpose of the book of Hebrews was written to show how does the blood of Jesus and belief in Him save anyone. Of course the book does show this, however, technically and historically the book was written for practicing believers in Jesus. They had already, by faith, made the decision. The book was written as a encouraging reminder. The then new Jewish believers were experiencing great persecution from there own nation, and some were being pushed into going back into practising animal sacrificing as a means of fellowship etc. Chs 2, 3, 4 and 6 open with words only akin to believers.

Hebrews 10 disagrees with you. And you are taking Paul out of context. In Romans chapters 5-7 he is speaking of the contradictions the unconverted face when walking after the flesh. Chapter 8 is the culmination and the conclusion to 5-7. 8:1 is clear that condemnation does not come to those who walk after the spirit because the spirit cannot sin. Please read Romans 8 and Hebrews in connection with each other

Hello, Due to time restraints I can only answer your quotes in bite size, so I will try and do this piece by piece.
Im trying to understand your view here on Pauls letters, and your overall view on the NTs teaching on sin, grace, and forgiveness.
Firstly ch 5 speaks of Gods grace through His Son, it speaks that faith in The Son has justified us to God. It teaches that while we were separated from God by unbelief, Gods grace was poured out to all through His Son. It teaches that through Adams sin, death spread to all men, but through Christ all who believe by faith through Gods grace, the penalty of sin which is death (spiritual and ultimately physical )will one day escape punishment and have eternal life in heaven. At the end of the chapter Paul explains two of the reasons why God gave the Law of Moses.

Im not sure what you mean by contradictions in the unconverted?? There is of course differences in the believer and the not, but Paul is writing to the Church, not unbelievers.

Brother Paul, it seems to me that Christians have added “salvation by faith doctrine” into the text of Romans 5:12-21. Apostle Paul simply says God’ s grace came through the one righteous act of Yeshua (which means i think his perfect obedience and faith toward his father HaShem). Throughout the Original Greek texts reveal that It is the faith OF Yeshua, not our faith IN Yeshua, which extingushed the wrath of God; thus God has already forgiven the sins of His covenant people even when they broke the covenant!

Hello
Yes you are right to say it is Gods grace that is given, and the wrath for sin was by means of Jesus death, Him, Christ receiving the penalty through His obedience to the Father.
However one has to believe in the act to receive the benefits. The individual has to apply faith so the resulted acts of Christ can have a direct result on the ones soul.
God did His part, but man has to exercise his faith.
Thanks.

I think the requirement of believing in the act of Christ applies only for Gentiles. That is why Galatians 3:8 mentions only Gentiles! The Jews are already in the eternal covenant; but they received the benefit not because of their faith in Yeshua but because of faith OF Yeshua as a representative of Jews and as righteous one of the household of Israel.

Are you saying that if not for Yeshua, Hashem would have broken his covenant with the Jewish people even though Hashem said in Tanakh hundreds of years before Yeshua was born that He would never break His covenant with them?

I don’t think HaShem would have broken His promise. However the glory of Hashem might have been blurred. what would gentiles say to Hashem? He once made the Sinai Covenant in which the penalty is death if failing to observe the Torah and later declare the new covenant in Jeremiah 31? How can the eternal covenant reconcile with the judgement upon the covenant people?

How can Hashem restore the eternal fate of those Israelites who were judged because of their disobedience in the wilderness?

The penalty for not keeping the Torah is death? Only for a small number of laws, only if there are witnesses who give the person proper warning, only if the person ignores the warning, only when there is a fully functioning sanhedrin, and only if the times are relatively normal when capital crimes are rare. You have been told a lie that the penalty for not keeping the Torah is death. The Tanakh says over and over again the essential and required remedy for sin is teshuva – not sacrifices, not blood.

Hello
Ch 6
The overall teaching of this chapter is to remind the believer that now they are not obligated to follow the sinfulness passions which they once walked, according to the flesh.
They should walk circumspectly with the power of the Holy spirit. Because Christ died believers should align themselves with His death and walk in the newness of there spiritual new life, just as Christ was physically resurrected into a new life.
When Paul is teaching about sin reigning in our bodies he isnt talking about the sin nature which is corrupted flesh or our DNA, gynetics, he is talking about wilful habitual sin which should be controlled by faithful obedience. If the overall sin nature was completely removed from the believers DNA as it were, all belivers should live for ever, and never die. The Bible doesnt teach such. The NT believer still has the sin nature of dying, Genesis ch ch 3 v19, but has the spiritual re birth John 3 16. That spiritual death came about in Gen ch 2 v 17.

“When Paul is teaching about sin reigning in our bodies he isnt talking about the sin nature which is corrupted flesh or our DNA, gynetics, he is talking about wilful habitual sin which should be controlled by faithful obedience.”

So you are saying corrupted flesh has no connection to habitual sin? What then is the source of this habitual sin if not the corrupted nature of the flesh ( as defined by Paul). Paul speaks of “crucifying the flesh” in order to gain the victory over sin. One cannot walk in the spirit if one has not “crucified the flesh” and “become a new creation”. Besides, you need to put this in the context of the whole, including the promise of perfection found in Hebrews and in 1 John:

1John3:5-7 “But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning ( Present tense). No one who continues to sin ( present tense) has seen Him or known Him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous.…”

“JUST AS CHRIST IS RIGHTEOUS”
“JUST AS” In the same way! Just as righteous! Christians claim Jesus was as righteous as God. (even though Jesus was clearly not perfect if you accept the words of the NT).

Hebrews 10:1-4 “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased? Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins…”

Please read verse 2 over and over again until it sinks in what is actually being said here:
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?…”

“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”

“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”

The truth of the matter is, the gospel that is presented in the promise of tangible total sanctification here and now, is the great promise of Christianity. That IS THE GOSPEL! Now, I know your arguments and have heard them many many times. But they are Christianity’s response to its own historically proven unfulfilled promise. It is NOT what the New Testament teaches!

You want to convince me that like every other prophecy left unfulfilled by Jesus, that this too is kicked down the road to the 2nd coming and the resurrection! These texts say NO SUCH THING! This full sanctification was Christianity’s major apologetic argument when Hebrews was written. It was what Christianity could promise that Judaism could not, according to the text. It was the reason Jesus even came according to the NT… to put an end to sin by humanity entering into a New Covenant with a better promise. That better promise is the ability to stop sinning COMPLETELY, not just a little less, in THIS LIFE.

So you are saying corrupted flesh has no connection to habitual sin? What then is the source of this habitual sin if not the corrupted nature of the flesh ( as defined by Paul). Paul speaks of “crucifying the flesh” in order to gain the victory over sin. One cannot walk in the spirit if one has not “crucified the flesh” and “become a new creation”. Besides, you need to put this in the context of the whole, including the promise of perfection found in Hebrews and in 1 John:

Hello

No Im not saying they are NOT connected, The NT is saying by nature we are born sinners because of Adams sin. His sin has been imputed into man. So we now are aligned with adams fall. All are born sinners, live as sinners, and die as sinners. The new birth does not instantly change the corrupted mortal flesh there and then, ie visibly. However the removal of immortality and incorruption does, is guaranteed by the Death and resurrection of Christ when a believer dies, or when the rapture occurs.
The text of John that you quoted isnt talking about the sin nature generally , he is referring to wilful, disobedient sin that is keeping the beliver from fellowship with God. Paul says “why are you still/ now doing the things which you were THEN NOT ashamed but now still practicing.
When the NT believer comes to Christ the future of there soul is heaven, there walk with God, Christ here on earth will go through 3 stages.
1. Justification. There faith has been justified through belief in the completion of the crucified Messiah and resurrection.
2. Sanctification. The on going process of being Christ like. ((( Our topic)))) No man can be ever, ever, ever like Christ in our present fallen condition.
3. Glorification. At the point of our resurrection and subsequently the Judgement all believers will finally become complete, as Christ.

John does teach that we are still sinners, 1 John ch 1 v18. Again this verse doesnt teach that we need to confess our daily sins to be eschatology forgiven, but forgiven in the one to one fellowship sense. Something that the RC church woefully got wrong.

Comparing Hebrew 10 v 2 with this topic is simple. The text isnt saying believers are instantly sinless, the text is simply saying that the animal sacrifices only atoned on a temporary basis, they covered the sin. They were a down payment in preparation for a better sacrifice. OT saints never went to heaven when they died, they went to Abrahams bosom. Their faith was justified by the animals blood but it wasnt a completed works until the blood of Christ was shed.
The OT sinner and the NT sinner are not different in the sense of general genetic sin, the difference is the change from daily, weekly, sabbatical and yearly sacrifices to the one off sacrifice which has completed the works of God by the blood through the crucified Yeshua.

“1. Justification. There faith has been justified through belief in the completion of the crucified Messiah and resurrection.”

Response: How? Why?

“2. Sanctification. The on going process of being Christ like. ((( Our topic)))) No man can be ever, ever, ever like Christ in our present fallen condition.”

Response: Ongoing process? So you believe in evolution? You are not “a new creature in Christ” but “an evolving creature in Christ that can never reach full evolution”? The holy spirit able to make you “some” better and “sort-of” able to conquer the flesh, but not completely? If it is not possible to ever, ever, ever be like Christ, and we MUST continue to sin due to fallen nature, then what is the point? We can do that without Christianity. If fallen nature is responsible for sin, as you say it is, then what does Jesus offer to solve this that God could not offer without Jesus?

You see, it makes sense if we are on our own , working toward righteousness, to say there will always be a struggle between the two natures ( Yetser Harah and Yetser Tov) and they are always at odds.
But if you are saying that because of Jesus’ death, God is in you “doing the works” there is no excuse to continue sinning or you are saying God is only semi-effective in changing the person and will always be no more than semi-potent until man’s human nature is taken away. This is accusing God of unjustly giving a law that man could NEVER keep or obey in his humanity, and then damning him to eternal flames for not keeping it. Also, if Jesus was “the second Adam” and walked over Adam’s steps, but emerged victorious, it is also cheating because Jesus had something Adam didn’t have, deity.

3. Glorification. At the point of our resurrection and subsequently the Judgement all believers will finally become complete, as Christ.

Response- Again, why can’t God do this without Jesus? Why does belief have any bearing on the solution to sin being the granting of a new sinless nature that was not available prior to death or “secret rapture”? If God decided to grant this to Hitler, then Hitler would be perfect, Jesus or not, because our sin is the result of our nature. As you and Christianity say, “We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.” Jesus either changed this or he didn’t. Christianity either solves this or it doesn’t. Hebrews is either right or it is not. Jesus’ blood either “took away sin” or it didn’t. You are saying that this is yet another promise left unkept until the 2nd coming.

Convenient.

Reprinting until you “get it”:
Hebrews 10:1-4 “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?

“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?…”

“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”

“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”

10:11 “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT ( past tense) forever those who are being made (PRESENT TENSE) holy.
10:26
“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins” Aramaic Bible in Plain English

Don’t like that version? here’s a few more:

“For if a man sin, voluntarily, after he hath received a knowledge of the truth, there is no longer a sacrifice which may be offered for sins” Peshitta

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” KJV

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” Young’s Literal

“For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins” Jubilee Bible

“For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins” Douay-Rheims Bible

The problem, Kavi, is that it is speaking in the context of Jesus’ sacrifice, not the temple sacrifices. IN the temple sacrifices (which cannot “make you perfect”,) a person could sin and then another sacrifice could be made ( if he were repentant). Hebrews was written while the temple still stood and sacrifices were being made!
Read carefully:

Hebrews 10:1-2- “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. IF IT COULD, would not the offerings have ceased?”

Please continue reading:

“Day after day every [ Jewish] priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest ( JESUS) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by ONE sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.

Now continue reading the conclusion, which is directly tied to the above statement:

“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins ( Because Jesus cannot be sacrificed AGAIN) But that terrible judgment is ready and the zeal of fire which consumes the enemies. For if any violated the law of Moses, he would die without mercy by the mouth of two or three witnesses. How much more do you think he will receive capital punishment, he who has trampled upon The Son of God and esteemed the blood of his covenant to be like that of every person, who also was made holy by it, and he has despised The Spirit of grace?

Jesus cannot be “crucified afresh”. That is the point he is making. If Jesus’ sacrifice and indwelling spirit does not stop you from sinning intentionally, you’re out of luck because Jesus cannot be sacrificed a second time. His human sacrifice (God forbid) was a ONE TIME FOR ALL TIME sacrifice!THAT is what is being said here, if you read the context!

Eleazar,
The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into Hebrews 10:26

However, Gentiles often commit such mistakes because they are steeped into a culture foreign to the mind of a 1st century Jew accustomed to the Temple sacrificial system.

To be honest, it’s a shame that the Book of Hebrews is so terribly misinterpreted due to the absence of Messianic Jewish understanding…

Not that I blame you personally– I just feel you been tripped-up by bad church doctrine.
__________________________

The conclusion of Hebrews 10:1-14 is Verse 18 [not a leap to verse 26]
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
__________________________

You do see the classic Hebrew parallelism between these two verses, right?

“…. there is no longer any offering for sin.” [v18]
and
“…. there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” [v26]

Both of these verses show a comparison:
[a] First, each looks to the redemption offered through L-RD Yeshua [which leads to life and righteousness] and
[b] Second, each THEN looks back to the Temple sacrificial system [which leads to death and judgment]…
___________________________

Eleazar,
The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into the second half of Hebrews 10:26 as you have done…

However, Gentiles often commit such mistakes because they are steeped into a culture foreign to the mind of a 1st century Jew accustomed to the Temple sacrificial system.

To be honest, it’s a shame that the Book of Hebrews is so terribly misinterpreted due to the absence of Messianic Jewish understanding…

Not that I blame you personally– I just feel you been tripped-up by bad church doctrine.
__________________________

The conclusion of Hebrews 10:1-14 is Verse 18 [not a leap to verse 26]
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
__________________________

You do see the classic Hebrew parallelism between these two verses, right?

“…. there is no longer any offering for sin.” [v18]
and
“…. there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” [v26]

Both of these verses show a comparison:
[a] First, each looks to the redemption offered through L-RD Yeshua [which leads to life and righteousness] and
[b] Second, each THEN looks back to the Temple sacrificial system [which leads to death and judgment]…
___________________________

“The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into Hebrews 10:26”

Eisegetically? Read the text! All the temple sacrifices are spoken of in the present text. This was written while the temple still stood. How can you miss that?

You are doing semantic backflips to twist the plain meaning of these texts!

Also, your subtle ad hominem ( paraphrase- you’re just a Gentile, how could you understand?) does not change the plain meaning of the text. That is why you are reduced to taking parts of sentences rather than reading the entire paragraph or entire chapter.

But explain something to me. You wrote:

“First, each looks to the redemption offered through L-RD Yeshua [which leads to life and righteousness] ”

How does this work? How does belief in Yeshua bring life, righteousness or redemption? Especially, how does belief in Yeshua bring righteousness? Is this a real tangible righteousness or an imagined one? How righteous is this righteousness? A little? A lot? Complete? What does this righteousness look like?

I am sure Paul Summers would also be interested in your answer, since his original questions to me were ( paraphrase) “How righteous does one need to be to stand before God” and “How do you attain to that level of righteousness?”.

You are correct that the then temple offering’s were still in place. Hebrews was written pre temple destruction. Of course non Christian Jews were using and believing in the system. As stated earlier the newly converted Jews were thinking or even were actually going back to the old system. Hebrews is telling them not to, because its pointless, and more importantly they needed to stay away from Jerusalem because unknown to them the Roman onslaught and destruction of the Temple was still future.

Eleazar,
It appears you did not read my second post clarification,
“The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into the second half of Hebrews 10:26 as you have done…”

The misinterpretation of the Book of Hebrews [and particularly 10:26] is caused by an unsupportable Gentile viewpoint foreign to the mindset of 1st century Jews– despite contrary evidence.

Although you disagreed with the evidence in my prior post, you could not disprove those words–

And actually, I only provided part of the ample evidence that the word “sacrifice” in Hebrews 10:26 refers to the “Temple sacrifice”.

So, here is more…

[a] Q: Is your interpretation logical?
According to your own words, “Hebrews is an apologetic on the supremacy of the one time sacrifice of Jesus.”

As such, can you truthfully argue that Hebrews 10:26 is now going to make a case against the supremacy of the one time sacrifice of Yeshua?

[b] Q: What is the summary statement of Hebrews Chapter 10?
“But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” [Hebrews 10:39]

Here, we find the writers of Hebrews:
** continue the same comparison between L-RD Yeshua VS the Law’s Temple sacrificial system [as in verses 18 and 26 and elsewhere] AND,
** indicate faith in Redeemer L-RD Yeshua is an eternal, secure redemption VS the Temple sacrificial system which only brings wrath and judgment…
__________________________

As to the last point regarding eternal redemption, Tanakh teaches,
“How blessed is the man to whom the L-RD does not impute iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit!” [Psalm 32:2]

““Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”

Absolutely! Hebrews is clear of two things concerning Jesus’ death:

1- One time for all time meant sacrifice was no longer needed because it was a complete atonement. That is the intent of the text you posted.

2- One time for all time there is no longer a sacrifice AVAILABLE any more, either. That is the meaning of v 26. And as you will see, 6:4-6.

Now, your insistence that “one time for all time” ONLY means “sacrifices no longer needed ” does not stand in context of several verses, including Hebrews 6:4-6

“But those who have descended once to baptism and tasted the gift from Heaven and received The Spirit of Holiness, And tasted the good word of God and the power of the future world, Who would sin again, and AGAIN crucify The Son of God, and become contemptible, cannot be renewed to conversion.”

This text says that those Christians who sin again, who backslide, cannot return. Why can’t they return? Because it would require another sacrifice! It is clear in this text that Jesus’ one time sacrifice is meant in the context of “no sacrifice available”, not “no sacrifice needed”. Moreover, the believer in this case is sinning AFTER receiving the holy spirit! Put this in context of what the author says the reason why temple sacrifices are inferior:

Hebrews 10:1-2- “It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. IF IT COULD, would not the offerings have ceased?”

But speaking Jesus’ sacrifice it says:

“For by ONE sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.”

So according to this text in Hebrews, we have TWO sacrifices:

1- Animals ( and flour/oil) that needed to be continued due to the fact that the people were continuing to sin, and thus a need for sacrifices every year. If they could make people perfect, then do they continue?

2- Jesus’ blood- a sacrifice that only needed to be done once because it made people perfect and sacrifice was thus no longer needed because it had the power, by the holy spirit, make believers stop sinning.

The perfection of character and the solving of sin is the issue in view. Plain as day. The gospel according to Hebrews and 1John is this: Judaism does not solve sin. Jesus death and Christianity do.
But history shows clearly that Christianity has NOT solved sin. It is a theory that has been proven wrong.

“For by ONE sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.”

Hi
Yes the sacrifice of Christ removed the need of animal sacrifices.
Yes Christ cannot be re crucified, this teaches eternal security, which is true, A better sacrifice. One cannot lose there redemption.
As stated previously, believers retain the sin nature after the re birth. Christ’s Blood sanctified and redeemed sin. The penalty of sin was/is death. Plus the sinful condition that keeps man from God. This gap has been bridged through Christ by Gods Grace. This salvation is applied to an individual by faith. The fullness of a sinlessness person is acquired at the resurrection.
The NT does not teach that a person becomes sinless here on earth. When sinless is mention the text refers to the ultimate goal which will come, future.

The opening statement which I pasted States “Those being made perfect” Its in a future tense. That’s sanctification which I mentioned, not evolution as you stated.

“Yes the sacrifice of Christ removed the need of animal sacrifices.
Yes Christ cannot be re crucified, this teaches eternal security, which is true, A better sacrifice. One cannot lose there redemption.”

“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins ( Because Jesus cannot be sacrificed AGAIN) But that terrible judgment is ready and the zeal of fire which consumes the enemies. ”

“But those who have descended once to baptism and tasted the gift from Heaven and received The Spirit of Holiness, And tasted the good word of God and the power of the future world, Who would sin again, and AGAIN crucify The Son of God, and become contemptible, cannot be renewed to conversion.”

1Cor 9:27:”No, I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified..”

“The opening statement which I pasted States “Those being made perfect” Its in a future tense.”

Actually, it is present tense (Must we really argue over basic grammar?), and refers to people who are becoming Christians. As they are becoming Christians, they are being made holy, no longer needing a sacrifice because the difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity “makes you perfect” and Judaism, by the same sacrifices year after year, does not. Please read some other versions of Hebrews 10:14-

For by one offering he has perfected those who are sanctified by him for eternity. Aramaic BIble

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who ARE sanctified. NASB

For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that ARE sanctified. Douay Reims

For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that ARE sanctified. ERV

for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified; Young’s Literal;

For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who ARE made holy. NET

In all of these versions, the sanctification is in the present/past tense.

1Cor6:10- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you WERE sanctified ( past tense), you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Try to understand that Hebrews is the only NT Book that makes the claim that Jesus is the literal fulfillment of the New Covenant as worded in Jeremiah 31.

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

Hebrews 8:7-12 : “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Here, Hebrews is claiming Jesus/Christianity is the literal fulfillment of this text! I ask anyone to read this through, especially verses 10 and 11, and tell me this has occurred and has been fulfilled. Remember that Hebrews chapter 10 is in context of this foundational doctrine.

Hi Alan
It seems a contradiction by many because when they see the word redeemed they automatically assume that the person in question becomes sinless there and then. Sinlessness in our present body, or tent as Paul calls it, is still ever present. We see this result by God telling Adam in Gen ch 3 v 19. Even faithful OT saints were still under a death sentance.
Death/sin has now entered into the human experience. That death is the penalty caused by sin. Our human flesh is now contaminated with sin/death, everyone dies, everyone is a sinner.

When Followers of Jesus talk about sin, its not simply about being good or bad or indifferent. Its reffering to the death which all humans experience which needed to be reversed.

The believer is baptised by the Holy Spirit at the instance one believes. The Holy Spirit indwells in all believers. 1 Corintians ch 12 v12, However the Holy Spirit sits alongside the old sinful nature of the believer, and as Ephesians ch 6 v 10 – 21 teaches believers struggle because 2 natures war against each other. The old and the new.
Most of Pauls letters are words of encouragement in difficulties, words of praise or some strict harsh words when required. This simply shows that believers are far from perfect or from harm in this world.

So ultimately Chtists blood has redeemed mankind. Futuristic the believer is saved from eternal punishment, presently he/she is aligned with Christs death, burial and resurrection, but while they are still breathing here on earth they are being sanctified, waiting for the blessed hope of the resurrection.

Let me try to say it back and please let me know if I am following you:

What you mean by “Christ’s blood has sancified and redeemed sin” is as follows-
The sanctification of the believer is due to the Holy Spirit that dwells in the believer’s body, and sinning is no longer an impediment to being holy (like G-d). The redemption of sin means the believer will not be tortured for eternity after death for whatever sins he did while he was living with the Holy Spirit in him.

Hi Alan
The NT doesn’t teach that we should continue in the things which we know are wrong. It teaches quite the opposite. The point at salvation is the Holy Spirit regenerates the dead human spirit, the soul/ spirit which is alienated from God. This is of the spiritual realm not the physical. John CH 3.
Physically the flesh is still corrupted.

We cannot save ourselves. God did all the works of salvation through Jesus. We can never make ourselves holy in the sense of complete God like holiness, but we should separate ourselves from following fleshly ways etc. Again sanctification is a process following the exercised faith in the completed works of the death, burial and resurrection.
And finally all past, present and future sins are completely and utterly blotted out from the presence of God in any believer in Christ Jesus God and King.

That is Grace. Not earned, or worked for, but a free gift offered to all who believes in the Only Begotten Son Of The Father.

Just to add, If a believer, say in a church environment falls into a wilful sin, say adultery, and he/she fails to repent and refuses council from the elders, then that person, scripturally, should be disciplined accordingly. Then that unrepentant person breaks fellowship with God. That person is disciplined by God, but the soul still belongs to God, as it was purchased with the Blood of Christ.

Paul,
You wrote: “Again sanctification is a process following the exercised faith in the completed works of the death, burial and resurrection.”

“Exercised faith” – what is the difference in sanctification after the believer passes on from this earth between the believer who “exercised” faith and the believer who didn’t exercise faith? I’m assuming that by exercised faith you mean practicing the ways of God on earth and not just believing. And I’m assuming that by sanctification you mean the Holy Spirit dwelling with a person both on earth and after one leaves this earth. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Hello Alan
Exercised faith is walking through this life, learning, prayers, works, relying on God not materialism, just generally walking, and maturing in the Faith. Exercising spiritual gifts.
Going through life’s tribulations and suffering in Christ’s Name will sanctify a believer. He or she will make many mistakes on route but the process will ultimately mature and sanctify the believer.
All believers grow and mature at different levels. Matthew 13. The NT teaches that there are crowns of rewards waiting for the believer in Heaven. Depending on how much one grows here in obedience is revealed by position in the Messianic Kingdom, here on earth.
That’s the future kingdom after Christ’s return.
However salvation isn’t balanced on how much we do here and now, only rewards. Salvation is based on the regeneration of the believer once they are saved. Something that cannot, cannot, cannot be lost.

Good morning Paul,
I’m following what you’re saying. So if a believer decides that: 1). they don’t care about rewards in the next world and 2). they don’t care about doing good on earth, they just want to pursue materialism even if it means hurting people – is such a believer good, holy and beloved in the next world?

I didn’t understand anything you said . At one hand you think that all your past, present and future sinful thoughts and deeds have been washed in the bloody violent killing of your god, on the other you still need to fight evil thoughts and evil deeds because there aren’t any divine consequences? a christian hiding under jesus is guaranteed to sin in the future and at the same time tells himself that there are no divine consequences because all his evil sin has been washed in the blood of god. You also have a NATURE which helps you do sin.

Hi Alan
That’s a great question.
The NT only teaches on what is given not what isn’t.
Positionally all believers are in the kingdom, some just have greater rewards which comes with more blessings.
I think the best way to look at your question is actually to ask, why wouldn’t you want to grow, once you see ones salvation?

The NT teaches about fruits as a visible sign of believers, not there works. Fruits are growth in spiritual matters etc.
Its like falling on love with some one, or loving your children. You don’t need to be told to say “I love you” its natural and you want to say it because you do love the person.

If one follows material things of this world and hurts people, its not the actually harm that person is doing that effects there rewards, it more of a case of what type of relationship they have with Christ presently that should be of concern. They should!!?? be more discernible with there new current spiritual condition instead of pursuing wealth and hurting people intentionally.
The NT does teach that tares grow with the wheat in the same field, ie confessing Christians who are not.
If you need biblical texts to substantiate my quotes just ask. I’m working at the mo, so no time to find the chapters and verses.

Paul,
I agree that believers should be growth-oriented. But I think you’re saying that in the final reckoning, even if someone did not believe their whole life but becomes a believer only at the very last moment, they partake of eternal holiness and life in the next world (albeit on a lower level than those who tried harder in their earthly life). But what if such a person was not only a non-believer until the last moment but also did much evil on earth, e.g. murder, stealing and sexual sins – what would such a person need to do or believe in the last moment in order to merit eternal holiness and life?

Firstly you have to see that individual sins past, pay no regard to ones future role in the kingdom. The sins individually are the actions of a unregenerate person. The overall generically sinful nature of man are the primary goal for the crucifixion. As the sinful nature has been purchased by Christ, so has individual past actions. They are blotted out.
In regard to a person being saved at the last moment in their life, here are a few pointers;
1. Because there is no sin within a believer in the Messianic kingdom, there cannot be any animosity because, envy, jealously, greed are all actions of sin, and resurrected believers have lost there sin nature.

2. Nothing can compare to the joy of salvation. Any Position in the Kingdom would out do the very sad alternative.
3. As far as God is concerned sin is sin. It is not measured by ones individuality. Even Paul/Saul was the earliest church’s enemy. By Gods grace even with Paul’s history, Paul was saved and then counter used to spread the Gospel news.

Christ Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for mans sin. No matter who that person is. Jew, gentile, black, white, Asian, rich poor, slave, free, man woman.
Or man needs to do is to believe by faith that through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, one has been redeemed, purchased and totally forgiven for all sins and their sinful nature.
He took it on Himself to save you and me. Its a free gift that costs us nothing but cost God everything.

Hi Paul,
So if an incredibly wicked monster like Pol Pot, for example, at the last moment of his life accepted upon himself the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for all his sins, he would be a holy member of the community in the world to come?

The bottom line, Paul, is that you are putting off to the 2nd coming what Hebrews claims has happened in the past, and should happen in the present, in the Christian experience. You MUST do this because you know as well as I do that Christianity does not produce, in tangible reality, a sinless person or a person who has gained the victory over sin as promised in Hebrews.

Christianity has had to resort to the formula of “Unprovable Invisible justification is complete and experienced by the Christian, but complete , tangible and literal sanctification is a process that can never be achieved by a mortal human being, even one filled with the holy spirit”

Its back to the basic Christian apologetic argument that, “ANYTHING provable and visible will be accomplished by Jesus in the future. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING unprovable and invisible has been fully accomplished”

Hi
Hebrews doesn’t teach what you say. It aligns Christ blood with animal sacrifices as a mode, but teaches that it is superior in the remission of sins.
You keep stating that Christians are supposedly sinless, I keep telling you the NT teaches otherwise. Believers do ultimately have victory through the resurrection. You keep stating, again!! That Holy Spirit filled believers don’t reach perfect sanctification, and by you that’s proof of a non actual process. But the NT does teach that you cannot reach perfection here on earth. Its not a contradiction, its actually written and seen by believer’s. You just mid read Hebrews.

No sir, it says exactly what it says. The reason animal sacrifices were inferior is because they did not make people perfect. Because it did not make them perfect, they had to have sacrifices continually because they continued to sin. It says that in plain black and white.
It is you ( and the church) who cannot handle the reality of the gospel, Paul. Plain and simple. Christianity has always struggled with the insurmountable problem of:

1- Presenting Jesus and the indwelling holy spirit being the answer to solving sin…

and

2- The Christian inability to stop sinning no matter how “spirit-filled” he becomes.

EVERYBODY PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING!

Take John for example, Paul. In both his gospel and his short epistles, he presents Jesus and the indwelling spirit as the answer to sin, proclaiming that anyone who sins is not a Christian!

PLEASE READ VERSE 6! You say this is not possible and the the New Testament does not teach this! ( emphasis mine)

1John2:3 “We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him MUST LIVE JUST AS JESUS LIVED”.

Continuing

PLEASE READ THIS NEXT ENTIRE PASSAGE, ESPECIALLY VERSE 9! You say this is not possible and that the New Testament does NOT TEACH THIS! Now go back and read Hebrews! You will see that my reading is spot-on! ( emphasis mine)

1John3:5-9 “And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whoever stays in him sins not: WHOEVER SINS HAS NOT SEEN HIM, NEITHER KNOWN HIM. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God.”

It is you, Paul ( and the church) who are denying the very gospel of Jesus and denying your own scriptures!

I read the passages you brought. The average person reading this would very likely understand this to mean what you say it means – one who believes is no longer able to sin and one who sins is of Satan, neither has he seen or known Jesus (to know is to do the commandments according to these passages). However, the more mature Christian can’t understand it on the simple level because it contradicts reality. My educated guess is what they do is the following: as long as a Christian maintains a conscious awareness of Jesus he cannot sin because where there is light there is no darkness. But this consciousness takes effort and it is not automatic. As soon as one forgets Jesus, the darkness returns and one is now “of the satan”. But as soon as one catches oneself and reminds oneself of Jesus, the light dispels the darkness and one can at that moment not sin. There are Chassidic writngs that speak in similar language to the passages you quoted and they give a similar explanation to the one I just wrote. These kinds of mystical-sounding writings can be very confusing and are not to be understood literally. I think what these NT passages want to do is to simply say that Torah is no longer good enough and Jesus is the replacement for all the sacrifices and in order to have eternal life bound to God, one must believe in Jesus. The goal is the same – the world to come – but the NT wants to change the means because the old means is too difficult in many ways. There is still a fight with evil but the old way is too hard.

Paul Summers
Eleazar is, as usual, making really great points here. It would be helpful if you would back up your arguments with scripture like Eleazar does. It’s good to know your opinion, but it would also be nice to know what you base your opinion on. I’ll admit I haven’t read everything but a quick review shows you have a lot to say but little to back it up with.

Larry,
I fully concede that Paul can bring in TONS of NT texts which he can claim refer only to “imputed righteousness” ( justification) or can claim that all texts referring to “righteousness in christ” are referring only to imputed righteousness. No different than the Christian apologists who claim Isaiah 43:10-12 in Tanakh is a reference to Jesus. The problem for Paul ( or Kavi) is that he has nothing to refute the clear case for complete imparted righteousness as laid out plainly in the texts I have posted. And to try to refute those is to try to refute his own religion’s scriptures.

Whatever the text says, I still don’t see that they are forced to interpret it literally to mean complete imparted righteousnes 24/7 for the rest of one’s life and that without this perfect practical righteousness one is not saved.

There are chassidic texts that say that complete righteousness 24/7 365 is possible for everyone but then the chassidic commentators all interpret the text non-literally. I personally don’t like it which is one of the reasons I am not chassidic. I am referring to one prominent chassidic group but I will not name them here.

All of mankind has the ability to be saved. God wishes no man to perish.

However a couple of Scriptural principles have to be followed.

1. The gospel message has to be given. Romans CH 1 v 16~17
2. The said individual cannot be a atheist, There must be a very basic foundation of Gods existence. Romans CH 1. 18~ 31.
3. Gods sovereign reign does put into power who he wishes. Daniel CH 2 v 21 and CH 4 v 35.
The point of no 3 is that some people are given over to satanic control to be used to see Gods prophetic plan through to the end. John 13 v 30.

“He or she will make many mistakes on route but the process will ultimately mature and sanctify the believer.
All believers grow and mature at different levels. Matthew 13.”

the problem is that jesus thinks that lusting with eyes = adultery. he didn’t say that he will give up his eye on behalf of lusting eye, he said that christian needs to pluck out his eye.
i think even jesus realized that violently killing a god doesn’t really help problem of sin.
and why does christian need to mature in anything since his sin nature will infect his repentance and sincerity . remember that jesus died for insincere repentance. insincerity .
blood sacrifices have helped christian get away with sins.

The point Jesus is making about eyes and list are this,
The law of Moses states that Adultery is committed when one physically commits the act. Jesus Is teaching the righteous requirements or the proper interpretation of the law.
He is stating that adultery has already happened in the heart before the physical act because the individual had looked and longed for the adultery to take place. So its not the act per we but the want to, which led to the act.
When He States “Pluck out your eyes” its not literal, but a term of reference to show how serious the problem is.
Your other statements make no sense to me.

But your beliefs are teaching that all past, present and future adulteries have already been atoned for in the sacrificial murder of god. Jesus told you how to cure a serious problem, he told you to pluck your eye out. in your beliefs, you have Jesus dying for past,present and future lustful thoughts, so you have taken out the “serious” in “serious problem”

what I am saying is that you are lying to yourself if you think you as Christian can live holy life because the whole point of your god KILLING himself was because you CANT live holy life. your god allows you to get away with sins because he is always reminded of the bloody crucifixion ritual.

Hi
Firstly The NT and I have never ever stated that one is holy in this life, please confirm where I stated otherwise.
Jesus wasn’t murdered. Also He never killed Himself.
Can you confirm where Jesus is reminded of His own death?
As explained previously, Jesus was using a common practice of extreme analogy to make a point.
That point was adultery starts in the heart of one.

“Extreme analogies” don’t undo lustful thoughts. Jesus gave you practical advice , he told you to cut your eye off, otherwise you might end up losing your rewards. The strange and funny thing is that you guys tell yourselves that the sinful thoughts, past , present and future have already BEEN CLEARED and wiped off from your wrongs. You are free.no more divine consequences, but then you are in a BIND, you still NEED to acknowledge the wrong and be responsible ,indicating you view remorse, repentance and acknowledgement GREATER than Jesus’ sacrifice/murder.

jesus did kill himself, he said in john that he had power over his own life.

Answering your points in no order.
When Jesus makes the point in John 10 v 18, He is making the point of His own power in the resurrection. Not sure if you know how crucifixion works, but nailing oneself to cross is a neat trick by any standards!
Scripturally speaking God His Father was responsible for His Death. Isaiah CH 53 v 10.

The point, again! is that Adultery begins in the heart when one constantly looks after another outside the marriage. The analogy, yes analogy’s are allowed, was simply teaching one to stop looking. Its not just a matter of a lustful thought, its more of building on that thought and pursuing it until it becomes a reality.

You seem to think that being self disciplined and responsible for ones moral actions are stupid and irresponsible?

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

even if the pagans NAILED your god, they did not KILL him according to john. jesus , according to john ,thought he switched himself off. so jesus took his own life. jesus KILLED himself.

if jesus PUT an end to his life because the father gave jesus the power to do so, then jesus is responsible.

“The point, again! is that Adultery begins in the heart when one constantly looks after another outside the marriage”

and what helps your heart? THE eyes. what did jesus advice you ? Lose your eye.

“The analogy, yes analogy’s are allowed, was simply teaching one to stop looking. Its not just a matter of a lustful thought, its more of building on that thought and pursuing it until it becomes a reality.”

you don’t even need to build on it a SECOND time, jesus told you LOSE the eye. if that doesn’t work lose the second one too. your eyes help you in building on the thought. your god gave you advice to lose your eye.

if your hands help you do sin, lose your hands too. this is advice from jesus.

“I think the best way to look at your question is actually to ask, why wouldn’t you want to grow, once you see ones salvation?

The NT teaches about fruits as a visible sign of believers, not there works. Fruits are growth in spiritual matters etc.
Its like falling on love with some one, or loving your children. You don’t need to be told to say “I love you” its natural and you want to say it because you do love the person.”

“My educated guess is what they do is the following: as long as a Christian maintains a conscious awareness of Jesus he cannot sin because where there is light there is no darkness. But this consciousness takes effort and it is not automatic. As soon as one forgets Jesus, the darkness returns and one is now “of the satan”.

Alan,
I understand, and that would be a decent compromise, except for one thing: John says that if one is in Jesus “He will live JUST as Jesus lived”. But being “in Jesus” is a condition of Christian salvation! If one can be “In Jesus, out of Jesus, In Jesus, out of Jesus”,etc., then one would be caught in an ever-revolving door of righteousness and sin, of salvation and damnation. Of needing a sacrifice and not needing one, needing one and not needing one, and on and on.

That was the accusation against Judaism, since Christianity taught that one must be “perfectly righteous and holy” to be saved and that Judaism failed in this regard. THAT “perfect cleansing to stand before a perfectly holy God” was Paul’s first question to me that began this entire discussion! It was that question that spawned the post at the top of this page! This was the very situation Christianity promised to resolve! To solve the “saved/not saved” revolving door was the purpose of Jesus’ incarnation according to the books of 1John and Hebrews! According to Hebrews’ quoting of Jeremiah 31, the prophesied New Covenant is intended to solve that problem, is the “covenant based on better promises”, and Jesus was the ratifying sacrifice required for the covenant ( since all biblical covenants are ratified by blood).

In the New Testament, there are two kinds of righteousness that come from faith in Jesus:

1- Imputed righteousness- God *counts* you as perfectly righteous because of Jesus’ blood sacrifice, thus Jesus’ perfection is *imputed* to you. This is what Paul Summers keeps talking about, and claims that this is completed and fulfilled. This cannot be proven to exist and is taken entirely on faith.

2- Imparted righteousness – The actual and real righteousness of Jesus is given to you in the form of the holy spirit sanctifying you and making you perfect in the practical and tangible sense ( to stand before a holy God) no longer needing yearly, continuing sacrifices. This is what 1John and Hebrews is is talking about. God cannot lie and call a sinning person sinless just because of what he professes as a belief system. This imparted righteousness, according Hebrews chapters 8 through 10, is what Judaism lacked in the sacrificial system, thus requiring continual sacrifices.This imparted righteousness is as much a part of being saved as imputed righteousness is, especially to John and Hebrews ( and Jesus in the gospel of John). Thus, the stern warnings found in 1John 2&3 and Hebrews 10:26 and 6:4. According to 1John, this imparted righteousness,”HE CANNOT SIN BECAUSE HE IS BORN OF GOD” is the sign of a true Christian.

That being the New Testament definition, I have never met a “true Christian”.

This is very helpful! In light of what you wrote, here’s how I think a mature Christian would answer:

The combination of the imputed rigteousness and the struggle with the imparted righteousness makes a person clean and pure enough to stand before God and not be rejected by him. These are both ideas borrowed from the Torah. It’s all in the Torah – they just transfered everything in the Torah to Jesus. I might not be making myself clear.

The difference is that Torah does acknowledge the struggle ( Ysrael= one who struggles with God and with man) and that is understood. Yes, we can all do it. But the truth is that we don’t all do it. God is not going burn someone in eternal hellfire because he is not 100% perfect. The whole point Hebrews is making is that this “struggle” , which requires a yearly sacrifice to cover your short-fallings, is where Judaism,Torah and the Mosaic Covenant fails. Read this carefully:

“The law ( Torah) is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would NO LONGER HAVE FELT GUILTY FOR THEIR SINS. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

The only ways a human can not feel guilty about their sin is to-
A- Abolish any standard of sin
B- Stop sinning
C- To be a sociopath.

So was Hebrews promising make people perfect and no longer needing a sacrifice or promising to create a religion of spiritual sociopaths who didn’t have to care if they sinned or not?

SIDE NOTE:Do Christians feel guilty for their sins? Paul, Kavi and any other Christian who comes here would say absolutely! So how has the Christian covenant resolved this dilemma that is considered a failing of Torah? IT HASN’T!

I read it carefully and it is saying that Hashem in the Torah was a sadistic liar when he said that the Temple offerings, especially Yom Kippur, atone. Thanks for being patient with me. I’m finally starting to see what you’re seeing in these passages – these are impossible claims of no more revolving door and yet admitting to a revolving door at the same time.

Eleazar,
The Book of Hebrews roots itself in the teaching of Tanakh in order to describe how G-d redeems mankind and makes them holy…

And like Apostle John and Apostle Paul, the Tanakh forms the basis for their writings as well– for example, in describing the completeness of the L-RD’s redemption based on Psalm 32 and other passages of Tanakh,

How blessed is the man to whom the L-RD does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit! [Psalm 32:2]

Anyone unafraid to read the Book of Hebrews for themselves might very well find a logical presentation of the good news of the L-RD’s complete salvation in L-RD Yeshua…on the other hand, maybe they won’t…but at least they will have read and made their own decision…
_______________________________

Kavi, imputed righteousness is not what is under discussion. But while you’re at it, explain why this Psalm says nothing about this imputed righteousness being the result of “believing in” a dead man or a human sacrifice.

Read my posts and you will see why imputed righteousness ( “justification” to use the Christian term) cannot be what is in view in Hebrews 10 or 1 John2 and 3.

1John2:3 “8He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God.”

Paul Summers,
This says that he that commits sin is of the devil. And whoever is in Jesus cannot sin.
Do you believe that you, Paul Summers, cannot sin?
And if you know that you still sometimes sin, do you feel responsible for the sin or do you feel it has nothing to do with you?

“I don’t feel guilty at all for my sins.
I’m profoundly and abundantly joyful that my sins have been forgiven.”

Paul,
In Psalm 51 you can see how King David felt about his sins. He felt joy for being forgiven but at the same time the regret/guilty feeling never went away as long as he lived. This is the attitude of the true line of David to sin –

Psalms Chapter 51
5 For I know my transgressions; and my sin is always before me.
18 For You do not delight in sacrifice, else would I give it; You have no pleasure in burnt-offering.
19 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
20 Do good in Your favor to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem.
21 Then will You delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt-offering and whole offering;
then will they offer bullocks upon Your altar.

On the one hand, nothing can stand in the way of teshuva. On the other hand, the more severe a person’s sins are, the more difficult it becomes to do teshuva, even to the point of having the privilege of teshuva finally being taken away so there is no longer any possibility of doing teshuva. The effort it takes to successfully do teshuva increases in proportion to the weight of a person’s sins. In Christianity all one has to do to make it into the kingdom is to not be an atheist, to be made aware of the ‘good news’ and to believe that somebody else already paid the price for one’s sins.

Alan,
Since you quote from Apostle John, I thought it might be best to show you the parallel concepts rooted in Tanakh…

In Psalm 32, I think we find two ideas presented…
[a] The L-RD will not impute sin to certain men and women [Psalm 32:1-2 and the “seed” in 1 John 3:9]
[b] Yet, David did sin after achieving that perfect state of righteousness and, as such, see how G-d deals with him until David confesses his sin to the L-RD to remove the “guilt” associated with that sin [Psalm 32:3-5 and 1 John 2:1]

We know that mankind has a body and Nephesh– and it would appear that when first created, the L-RD imparted His Holy Spirit as well into mankind’s Nephesh.

Does it seem inconceivable to you that the L-RD can make holy again the Nephesh [which is eternal] while not cleanse body [which is temporal]?

“Alan,
Since you quote from Apostle John, I thought it might be best to show you the parallel concepts rooted in Tanakh…

In Psalm 32, I think we find two ideas presented…
[a] The L-RD will not impute sin to certain men and women [Psalm 32:1-2 and the “seed” in 1 John 3:9]
[b] Yet, David did sin after achieving that perfect state of righteousness and, as such, see how G-d deals with him until David confesses his sin to the L-RD to remove the “guilt” associated with that sin [Psalm 32:3-5 and 1 John 2:1]

We know that mankind has a body and Nephesh– and it would appear that when first created, the L-RD imparted His Holy Spirit as well into mankind’s Nephesh.

Does it seem inconceivable to you that the L-RD can make holy again the Nephesh [which is eternal] while not cleanse body [which is temporal]?”

I read the above several times, and I’m not following. Also, there is no such thing as a “perfect state of righteousness” according to traditional Judaism. If one has flesh and blood, then sins and mistakes will happen.

When a Christian sins in front of his god, then he tells himself that the present sin and future sin and past sin has already been forgiven/atoned/cleared. Animal sacrifices were to take away guilt and Christian thinks that his god took away guilt from all years. This is not matter of sorrowful heart, this is celebration for the Christian.

Hi Alan
Postionly, once I was seperate from God, before my salvation but this, then, I of course never new. However looking from Gods perspective future, then, I was always predestined to be saved. That is something I never new of past. Romans ch 8 v29. Ephesians ch 1 v 5 and v11. However Im well aware of it now. So no guilt trip, just blessed thanks for His Grace.

Unless Pol Pot repented to the fact that he himself was a sinner and Christ Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for his sins, then no salvation for Mr Pott. Plus I think?? He was a Buddhist and definitely at communist. Communism is founded on atheism. So unless he repented on his political and religious stances prior, his eternal life is quite grim.

I think the passage that you are referring to is 1 John ch 3 vs 4-9??
These verses are contextually speaking about believers and non believers. ie, v 9 states “Who ever has been born of God does not sin” The text isnt saying who believes does not commit sin or have the sin nature. The next part states His seed remains in him. The His seed is Christ and the Gospel truth. The him cannot sin in the sense of becoming a unbeliever. The opening verses set the context, Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor know Him. So the sin is unbelief and unrighteousness, lawlessness.
If it meant what you think it means in the sense that John is referring to the absence of general sin in a believers life, then the whole message of the Gospel is flawed on the basis that sinners are irrelevant to Christs death, because how can a sinner get to know Christ if he has sin to start with??
Jesus very clearly stated that He had come to call sinners to repentance. Luke 5 32.
Once you repent the seed remains and the sin is no longer.

I dont disagree with your comments about David and his knowledge of his own faults and sin nature. However David was well aware of the inherited sin nature from his mother, and of course he understood how God could restore him. Personally I cannot advise completely about Davids feelings only my own, but you do get the sense from the text that Uriahs death troubled him, if it was this death that he was talking about. I dont see any repentance about the adultery though?

Hi Paul,
So if Pol Pot had admitted he was a sinner and Jesus died for his sins, he would be saved.

“9 Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God.”

So you are saying that “he cannot commit sin” and “he cannot sin” only mean that once he’s a believer he cannot be an unbeliever even though he can still commit sin? So once one is a believer, the sins are not really sins anymore simply because one is a believer?

You said you feel no guilt at all for your sins anymore – i assume you mean past sins. Do you ever feel any guilt for new sins?

Not sure if you’ve had chance to read my last response.
The text that you quoted is referring to the sin of unbelief in contrast of belief. Its not talking about sin in a believer’s life. Again, contextually its the sin of unbelief.

And yes If pol pot has repented on his nature, and seen that Christ had died for his sins, and through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection he, pol pot had been forgiven, then yes, even a man as such would be saved. John 3 16.

Hi Paul,
Yes I read your last response. I just wanted to make sure you are saying that the impossible sinning was exclusively referring to disbelief. Can you please define this disbelief as well as repentance that is required to be saved?

Hi Alan
Sorry didn’t finish.
I personally don’t feel guilty for my present sins, but that’s not to say that I’m not aware of them. I would liken the feeling as more annoyed and frustrated. The feeling of being weak in the flesh.

Hi Alan
We do have the choice between good, bad. Non believers do not have the this choice. Non believers can only serve the flesh. Believers can serve either. That’s the issue which is a spiritual struggle.

There isn’t a special ordered prayer for salvation. One just needs to believe by faith, that Christ Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins.

Paul,
When you say that only believers can choose between good and evil –
1. Please define “believer”.
2. If the believer can choose to think, say and do evil, then – is the believer of the devil? And in what sense has Christ destroyed the works of the devil?

Hi Alan
At first I was under the impression that you were genuinely seeking some answers on theological doctrine. However I’m now under the impression that its a mere mocking quest that you seek. I’m afraid our discussions end here.

Paul writes: “At first I was under the impression that you were genuinely seeking some answers on theological doctrine. However I’m now under the impression that its a mere mocking quest that you seek. I’m afraid our discussions end here.”

This is a bit rich coming from someone who was kicked off this blog (and squirmed his way back in a most unethical manner) because he refused to engage and insisted on one-way preaching.

Paul, you are not hear to learn but to try to convert others to your way of thinking. Are you projecting your own motives onto others?

Apostle John says it is a liar if we say we did not sin or we do not sin.
Before holy God we will all fall short of His glory and holiness. Stand in front of the Torah, we will be found guilty in some area in some time of our lives.
My question is how we could be atoned for in this time of history when we dont have high priest, the temple, and animal sacrifices?

Gean, how were we atoned for between the first and second temple period when there were no sacrifices? Were the Jews in captivity damned because there was no temple? Tanakh has plenty of examples of people forgiven without sacrifices. Oh, and many of those sacrifices did not use animals or blood at all.

“Apostle John says it is a liar if we say we did not sin or we do not sin.”

Yes he does, and then in the same paragraph goes on to say that Christians do not sin and will live just like Jesus! Here is the text you referenced:

1John 1:8-10 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

There you have it! Seems plain enough. This is Paul’s, Gean’s and Kavi’s argument in clear terms. But wait.Let’s move ahead a couple of sentences:

“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He ( Jesus) walked.

The first paragraph gives you the “revolving door” of sin/condemnation and repentance/salvation. The second says the Christian will walk JUST as Jesus walked, and will keep the commandments! And a few later:

“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ”

So then. Part of 1John says if we claim to be without sin we are liars, so you have a permanent defense attorney between man and God, Jesus, to get you pardoned. But then just a few sentences later it says that if you do sin you DO NOT EVEN KNOW JESUS, and that if you are a Christian your walk will be JUST like that of Jesus!. Finally, it goes even further to say that if you are a Christian you are not even ABLE to sin because you are “born of God” and His seed remains in you!

Let’s boil it down to only three sentences for simplicity:

1- If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”

2-The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

If you believe you don’t sin, you’re a liar, but if you DO sin you’re also a liar, and not even a Christian!
Is this the “revolving door” again? Or is there a way to make perfect sense of the entire book of 1John? And Hebrews, for that matter.

eleazar, have you seen Jimmy swaggarts apology on you tube? he is teary eyed and begging his god for forgiveness. Here is my confusion:

why would he show feelings of guilt when his god already cleared him of past, present and future crimes?

WHen swaggart went around converting non-believers , he may have told them about lust, lying , hate while at same time , in his heart, knowing that all his lust had already been forgiven/cleared/atoned.

So why teary eyed with guilty face ? isn’t the sacrifice meant to bring happiness to christian ? Don’t they celebrate that someone else was “sacrificed” because of their crime?

The explanation of 1John is that when he says “if we say are without sin we are liars, and make God a liar” he is speaking of our past or even present struggle of a person who is not fully converted. He says “I write these words to you so that you WILL NOT SIN.”

The other text, which says “He cannot sin because God’s seed remains in him” speaks exactly to the same thing Hebrews does, which is the indwelling spirit of God changing you from a sinner to a person who does not, and cannot, because God himself cannot sin, and therefore the person in whom His seed lives also does not sin. This speaks to a converted Christian, not just one who professes.

This is half, at least, of what the gospel IS! In fact, John says plainly, “No one who abides in Him sins…The SON OF GOD APPEARED FOR THIS PURPOSE, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ”

THIS IS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT!

NOW, please note this is speaking DIRECTLY to the fallen human nature! UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THE DEVIL CAN LITERALLY MAKE YOU SIN, it has to be talking about the Garden of Eden and Adam/Eve! John said this work of the devil is “from the beginning”. It is saying Jesus’ entire point of coming was to destroy the works of the devil as seen in effects of the fall in the garden and on from there! People would stop sinning because they would go back to a pre-fallen condition where God’s spirit abides within and changes your spiritual (and dare I say, physical since it was part of the fall according to Christianity) DNA from that of a sinner to that of a person who CANNOT SIN.

IF THIS WERE TRUE IT WOULD BE THE MOST ASTOUNDING EVENT IN HISTORY! DID IT HAPPEN?

Paul Summers, Gean and Kavi. Did Jesus destroy the works of the devil or not? You all admit to sinning. Are you then of the devil? Yes or no? And there is NOTHING about the 2nd coming in John’s words! They are ALL PRESENT TENSE and intended for his current audience.

Hi,
Yes Jesus did destroy the works of the devil. Through His Death and resurrection. The full revelation of this is seen through the resurrection of the saint into a glorified body at the resurrection.

Because the resurrection you speak of, the one where you claim you finally stop sinning and everything the messiah is supposed to do actually happens, takes pace at the 2nd coming.

Nothing in John or Hebrews says ANYTHING about the resurrection being when Christians finally stop sinning. John says you stop sinning because you abide in God and God’s seed abides in you. NOTHING about glorified bodies or human resurrections. It is ALL present tense and were teachings directed to , and relevant to, the people at that time. Both books clearly say a Christians does not sin because God’s seed/spirit lives in him. Nothing about a glorified body.

If you’re going to comment, please say something substantial and refute my points and interpretation with your scripture. If you want to pit Paul against Hebrews, John and Jesus, then go for it. But then you have to find a harmony between them all if you believe the NT is inerrant and infallible. Just saying “you’re wrong, it happens this way” does nothing to clarify or harmonize the textual teaching. BTW- Your argument is with Jesus, John and the writer of Hebrews, not with me.

But frankly, you obviously are either not reading my posts or are ignoring what the text actually says, else you would have a more substantial response.

Firstly I think it only right to correct you on the points that you have made.

No where did I say or the NT teach that sinlessness comes for Church saints at the 2nd coming of the Messiah. That’s you incorrect reading of anything said by me in regard to scripture. If you can find such teaching I would much appreciate the blogs to support such views.

The 2nd coming of Messiah and resurrection of Church saints are 2 completely different actions which take place at 2 completely different moments in time. This is why I asked you why you mentioned the event. It seemed confusing then, but know I see you have a misplaced preconceived idea on the texts. Something which is proven by your comments.

Secondly I’ve already pointed out that the seed that remains is the gospel message converting one to a spiritual life, which as you have stated, its in the present state. I’ve also pointed out that believers still have the sin nature and the capacity to sin while being believers.

2 Timothy 3 16 teaches that by the Power of Him, The Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are for teaching, rebuking those who believe in God. You find it easy to find “fault”!?! In the texts. There is no fault, you just lack a foundation of Him to work on. Faith in Him, a Spiritual rebirth.

i have a question for you paul.
there is a christian apologist called james white who thinks that not only was jesus sacrificed but did the act of sacrificing himself in some unknown way. roman deeds are stained with sin and your god needs “sinless deeds” to appease himself, then it is only logical that your god was NAILING himself in some unknown way. roman ACTS cannot transfer sins. roman nailing cannot appease your god. so do you agree that jesus NAILEd himself in some unknown way?

Hi
To be honest you’re argument is based on a thought of some one, not scripture, then pre assuming that argument to be valid.
Now you are focusing on his ideas to justify your stance. This will go no where!!

“The 2nd coming of Messiah and resurrection of Church saints are 2 completely different actions which take place at 2 completely different moments in time. ”

That is one of several views. But from here out I will refrain from saying “2nd coming” on this topic and instead say “resurrection”. It changes nothing, of course. Either way you disagree with the plain meaning of the text. The indwelling spirit of God spoken of in these texts is not “the gospel message”. It is the indwelling of the holy spirit.

“2 Timothy 3 16 teaches that by the Power of Him, The Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are for teaching, rebuking those who believe in God.”

I’ll address this after I get home from work. But in short, its a reach.

Hello YFP
For, probably the 4-5th time, I’m sure I’ve said so, the answer is No.
The psalm is quoted by Jesus because there’s a line in the psalm that talks about a ” friend” betraying a friend.
There’s nothing in the psalm that speaks about the whole psalm being the Messiah, v 2 is a good indication also.
I hope this finally clears this matter up.

PS
How can one just say “it changes nothing” I’ve just clearing shown your knowledge of scripture to be doubted on a great and central issue to, a, the debate in question, and b, Theology teaching as per scripture.
And you say that you can show no harmony and inconsistent texts in the NT. You are joking, right??

First point is that I wasn’t kicked off this blog for preaching, I was removed for not accepting non believers views on scripture. Basically I was told not to have my own view. Views, which incidentally, I can could show from the Scriptures.
Secondly I didn’t “squirm” myself back onto the site. I connected to the site via an email that I received. I inputted a response to a blog, and at my surprise the response was posted.
I didn’t ask IF I could return, nor did I promise to bend and become a YES man for your gratification.

So the word squirm that you use is inaccurate and a disproportionate to the truth. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Hello Alan
OK, on reflection, and on your response, I will endeavor to try and answer your questions.

1. Define a believer.

A believer is any person from the period of Acts CH 2, until the rapture ( we are talking only church period for know) who has believed that Christ Jesus died on the cross to penalty for ones sins. That through His, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection they have been forgiven and redeemed to the God of Israel, through His Son.
Sorry for any misunderstandings.

Paul, thanks for reconsidering. I assumed you have seen me commenting here for several months now and therefore you already knew where I’m coming from. If you haven’t just let me know and I’ll catch you up.
When you say that only believers in Jesus have the power to choose good over evil, you are only referring to believers who lived during a short period of time at the beginning of Christianity?

You must mean that a believer is someone who believes that the death, burial and resurrection save them from being eternally cursed and bring them to eternal life and this includes people who lived during the lifetime of Jesus until today. Does this mean that people who lived before Jesus were unable to do good? Does it mean that a non-believer is unable to do good? But this contradicts what we see in real life every day. And it also contradicts Tanakh which shows that God expected people to act morally – both Jews and non-Jews – before and after the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai.

Brother Alan, Please forgive the church for not presenting the teachings of the NT accurately. To those who believed in Yeshua himself, Yeshua directed their faith to the word of God (John 8:31 the core message of the Gospel is that the word of Yeshua is the word of God, not that Yeshua is God )! The NT gives ample evidence that the people of pre-Yeshua time did good and obeyed the word of God and entered the eternal life: Abel, Noah, Abraham Isaac Jacov, Solomon, David…. …. … … … So many… queen Sheba, Ninevites,… The parents of John the Baptist, Shimeon of Luke 2:25 and many many more!!!
True believer means, according to the NT, is someone who hears and obey the word of God revealed through consciences, the Torah and Tanackh, and Yeshua.

Thank you brother GGJ. If someone believes in the Torah, keeps the commandments, tries to be a moral and ethical person for the sake of God, but doesn’t accept the NT, is this person a true believer according to NT?

Sorry, GGJ, my question wasn’t good. Obviously, such a person is not a true believer according to NT. What I should have asked you was: is such a person able to do good? And if they are able to do good, are they able to be good?

Brother Alan, It does not matter whether pre or after , i guess Mankind always have been struggling to overcome sin; We are Absolutely Able to do good and to be good to keep the commandments of God. However many of us often fail. Enoch, Noah, Job, and a few people might be exception.

I often think of the reason why people easily fall into sin. It is not because of original sin but because of 😱 fear of sin. We all know what God has said to Cain: “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

Sin is portrayed like a beast!
Satan was working in the midst of serpent! Why Adam and eve forgot Genesis 1:27, 28? The authority and mandate to master and rule over those beasts?

We must master the sin and rule over it without fear of being overcome by it and being condemned by God.

If we keep the Torah out of fear of punishment, we will find ourselves often in our defeat; However, if we keep the Torah out of fear of God who showed the everlasting love and forgiveness for us on the cross, we will overcome and rule over the sin the beast!

That is why kids get up more early on the picnic day than on the regular school days even though they know they have to get up more early on the school days! 🙂

GGJ,
Everything you wrote sounds 100% correct except for one thing: “However, if we keep the Torah out of fear of God who showed the everlasting love and forgiveness for us on the cross, we will overcome and rule over the sin the beast!”

This is completely unnecessary. We could do it before the Cross and we can do it after the Cross with the same tools we had before the Cross. We all can do it – just us and Hashem with no other god or force or intermediary.

Brother, if you were living in Jerusalem in the time of Yeshua, when the temple sacrifice was still effective, would you have used the same tool (you mean repentance?) Or tried to follow the Torah for the atonement?

Before C.E.70, when the temple was destroyed, God did nothing? Prepared no alternative for His covenant people? Or just wiped out the temple without preparing the hearts of His people?

The Torah says a false prophet is not just one who says something in the name of Hashem that doesn’t come to pass. It’s also one who says he’s a prophet and starts a new religion, makes people serve someone or something other than Hashem or changes the halachic system.

What words of Yeshua didn’t come true? He told the followers of his generation that they would live to see the final redemption of the Jewish people.

Brother Alan. In what terms Yeshua started a “NEW” religion? He just RENEWED the covenant that was being shattered by the failure of the people of God. Yeshua did not say “pour out the water jar for Jewish purification and i will make a new wine in the empty jar” No. He transformed the water into 🍷 wine.

When did Yeshua command to serve or -worship himself or other God?

Are you saying that some will live to see the coming of the kingdom of God?

Gean, the following excerpt from one of my responses to CP is relevant to this conversation.

Jesus Was a False Prophet

This is much more serious than false messiah. If you claim to be the messiah, nobody would care. If you die without completing the task, you’ll be proved false. But so what? False prophet is worse, because anyone who speaks in God’s name words that he did not speak is liable to receive the death penalty.

In Deuteronomy 18, Moses tells the people that a prophet who speaks falsely must be put to death. But, he tells them, you might well ask, how will we know? And this is how he teaches us to figure out: if the prophet gives a sign that doesn’t come to pass. In other words, we’re supposed to test the prophet by asking for a sign.

But what happens when the Pharisees ask for a sign, according to the gospels? Jesus gets angry at them! Still, he reluctantly and grudgingly promises them the sign of Jonah. But he does not appear to them on the third day after his death. He allegedly appears in resurrected form only to his most devoted followers, and they don’t say a word until he’s been gone for fifty days!

Jesus promised his followers that before they died he would come on the clouds to gather his elect. They died. He never came.

Jesus predicted that the Temple and all of its buildings would be so thoroughly eradicated, not one stone would be left standing on the other. The Western Wall remains. The remains of the other buildings still stand.

Some prophet, huh?

But it gets worse. In Deuteronomy 13, we are taught that if a prophet performs miracles but teaches a new type of worship, he is a false prophet. This is why Jews are not impressed by Jesus’s supposed miracles. He taught avodah zarah.

What is avodah zarah? It means foreign worship. The Torah defines avodah zarah in three ways:

1) a type of worship unknown to us and/or to our fathers (Deuteronomy 13:7, 29:25; 32:17).

3) any type of worship not taught to us at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 4).

Jesus taught, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and on one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).

This is a type of worship that was unknown to us and to our fathers and is also a type of worship that was not taught at Sinai. For those who believe that Jesus is also God, it is worship of an entity other than God. Therefore, it is avodah zarah, foreign worship.

This teaching, which explicitly states that you need a man to get to God, contradicts the Torah. It also contradicts the explicit teaching that God is close to all who call to him with sincerity (Psalm 145:18).

Jesus taught about himself “I am the first and I am the last,” a description reserved only for God (Isaiah 44:6).

John, Chapter 1, teaches that Jesus is the word of God made flesh, also a foreign concept.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (NIV: 1-5, 14).

This is such obvious avodah zarah, it turns my stomach.

Jesus gave signs that did not come to pass and taught avodah zarah. Thus, he failed both prophet tests.

I guess Yeshua divided the whole dispensation of humanity into 3 generations: generation Before the judement of Noah’ s flood, generation between Noah’ s family and the judgement of the Messiah’ s second coming and the generation after the judgement into eternal kingdom of God.

The fig tree represent Israel. “When it becomes soft and bears leaves” means Ezekiel 36:26 the softening of the hearts of his people toward Gospel, which was once hardened by God’ s providence. The Summer (קיץ= end קץ) is near. The modern phenomenon of the Messianic movement and the growth of orthodox Judaism indicates the end of this world is coming near.

Paul Summers I was the one who kicked you off the blog – I kicked you off because you demonstrated that you don’t have the ability to concede even the most obvious flaw in your position – can you or can you not answer the question is Psalm 41 speaking of Jesus? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

“First point is that I wasn’t kicked off this blog for preaching, I was removed for not accepting non believers views on scripture. Basically I was told not to have my own view.”

Show me where anyone told you that you have to accept our views and that you can’t have your own view or you will be kicked off this blog. You are shameless.

Having been kicked off, at least have the decency to ask for permission to come back, instead of trying it out and seeing that, voila! your comments got through.

Finally, does anyone else find the exclusive nature of both Christianity and Islam interesting? Christians call non-Christians “non-believers” or “unbelievers” and Muslims call non-Muslims “kafirs” or “infidels.” But Jews don’t have a pejorative word for non-Jews (at least not officially; of course there are some Jews who engage in nasty name calling and I condemn the act). Jews believe that gentiles can be righteous and have a relationship with God. Unlike both other world religions, Judaism does not believe it has a monopoly on God, morality, and righteousness. A much more humble view, don’t you agree?

Hi Dina
Not wanting to go and on reference my kicking off. But the fact of the matter was clearly as I stated. I can’t repent to a issue that
I don’t believe in. The wording was very clear at the time. If it can be found, and I’m found to be wrong I would gladly apologize for the previous statement.

Also the reason I use the term believer and non believer is a simply matter of term of reference. To use the term Christian is often seen as a gentile only believer. To use Jew is often seen as Orthodox Jew who follows Judaism. This is one of the reasons that the “Church” has unfortunately separated it self from its roots, which has caused so much ignorance, which in turn has caused so much bloodshed. Because the average person can’t see that Jews can be believers in Christ Jesus. I thought you of all people could see this, especially with the enormous time I’ve spent engaging you on this very topic.
1 Corinthians 12 v13.

“Brother Alan. In what terms Yeshua started a “NEW” religion? He just RENEWED the covenant that was being shattered by the failure of the people of God. Yeshua did not say “pour out the water jar for Jewish purification and i will make a new wine in the empty jar” No. He transformed the water into wine”

Did Jesus started a new religion?

In order to answer that question , you need to read the Jewish Bible without the “Jesus lenses”. Read it as how a Jew would have read it . Put yourself in the shoes of a Jew. Then compare the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures to the Gospels. Did Jesus conduct his ministry within the religious framework of his day i.e Jewish halacha ?

1. He spoke with authority that set him apart from scribes (Mark 1:22, 27: Matt 8:9, Luke 7.8)
2. Jesus reconfigured divine commandments based on his own authority (Matt 5:21, 27,33,38,43)
3. In one instance he claimed authority to transcend the Sabbath since the Son of Man was “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28)

Point (1) is debatable . There are stories of individuals within other religious traditions that goes against religious authorities in their day. Martin Luther among them.

Rabbi Skobac had gone through point (2) and some are consistent with the Torah teachings , with certain exceptions especially with regards to the teaching on divorce (which has been extensively discussed in this blog )

If Jesus was a religious rebel , then point (3) to me is way across the line, as what he was advocating is tantamount to disrespecting the main “tenet” of Judaism . Compare this to to Leviticus 31:12-14:
12The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 13″But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 14’Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.…

Here’s another point ,from my own observation :

John 6:53-55

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Compare this to Leviticus Chapter 17: 10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood”

Did he come to start a new religion ?I am most certain it is a yes.

When did Yeshua command to serve or -worship himself or other God?

It was and still is difficult for me to come to terms on the fact that Jesus command to serve or worship him.Many liberal scholars are of the view that Jesus did not see himself as one -that the NT authors put words in his mouth-and I believed that for a long time.

Rabbi Blumenthal pointed out in one of his videos that the real messiah doesn’t divert attention to himself .With that in mind let’s compare two sets of prayers ,one by Elijah (Elijah and the prophets of Baal) the prophet and the other by Jesus (the resurrection of Lazarus)

1 Kings 18:36-37

36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”

John 11:41-42

41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the [k]people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”

I rest my case.

You may find works of Christian scholars helpful for proofs that Jesus has always thought himself as God (like the book I quoted above or by written by Lee Strobel ) as well as videos by Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacaharias ,Nabeel Qureshi ,James White etc.

Brother Sharon. I thank you for your comments with me and i admire your humbleness.

★I decided to put myself in the shoes of a Jew because that is what the New Testament commands!
1.Yeshua, “if you put a New cloth (NT theology or gentile Christian lens) on the Old garment (תנ”ך) it pulls the cloth and make a hole!” Matthew 9:16
Yeshua meant put the Old cloth (Jewish lens) on the new garment (Gospels)!
2. Paul, “All Scripture (which means תנך) is God- breathed and useful for teaching (Christian doctrine)” 2Timothy 3:16. Paul meant if any Christian teaching or doctrine is not consistent with the Old Testament, it is no useful rather harmful!

★When God said about Shabbat, He said “this is a sign אות between me and you”
אות
also means LETTER
The First letter א
The last letter ת
Yeshua is the WORD (Letter) of God made in flesh (John1:14) and also the Alpha ( the First Letter of Greek) and Omega (the last letter) = אות

★Did any follower of Yeshua for the past 2000 years eat the real flesh or drink the blood of him?
“Whoever eats the flesh and drinks my blood REMAINS in Me and I in THEM”
This means anyone who keeps the word of God = flesh and blood of Yeshua (John 1:14) be united with Yeshua. When the Jews believed in Yeshua himself, He diverted the attention; ” if you REMAIN in my Word, you become my disciple, Know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John8:31, 32) In the whole Gospel of John, the prologue of LOGOS theology(John 1:1~18) is permeated in the every verse of the John’s Gospel.
★can you find any NT verse that proves Yeshua always thought himself as God?

Gene
“False prophet means to me that someone declare something in the name of Hashem and it does not come true.”

This is a false prophecy:

False prophet means to me that someone declare something in the name of Hashem and it does not come true.

Another:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
What about the western wall?

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus showed himself only to his disciples, he gave them the “sign of Jonah” and never showed up to them…

Hi Gean,
You are a very courteous person. By the way ,its more appropriate to address me as “sister” Sharon.

“★When God said about Shabbat, He said “this is a sign אות between me and you”
אות
also means LETTER
The First letter א
The last letter ת
Yeshua is the WORD (Letter) of God made in flesh (John1:14) and also the Alpha ( the First Letter of Greek) and Omega (the last letter) = אות”

You stated earlier” I decided to put myself in the shoes of a Jew because that is what the New Testament commands!” , and again “Yeshua meant put the Old cloth (Jewish lens) on the new garment (Gospels)!” .
Forgive if I’m wrong , but it seems that you are benchmarking the Gospels /NT as the words of truth and view the Jewish Bible as a means to corroborate or confirm the NT message.

The Jewish lens or worldview is based on the Torah , the benchmark is the Torah .

“Did any follower of Yeshua for the past 2000 years eat the real flesh or drink the blood of him?”

Yes , if you include Catholicism as a legitimate Christian sect .I come from a Catholic background . Catholics believe that the bread and wine in Mass is transformed to the literal body and blood of Christ. This is called the Doctrine of Transubstantiation .Refer Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

“can you find any NT verse that proves Yeshua always thought himself as God?”
1. Jesus called out the 12 apostles, but he is not among them -Matthew 10:2,Luke 6:13 -16 -in the fashion of how God formed His people by setting up the 12 tribes of Israel.
2. “The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” -Mark 2:27-28,Matthew 12:8,Luke 6:5
3. Jesus’s repeated references to himself as the “Son of Man” –reference to Daniel 7
4. Jesus forgives and heals a paralyzed man –Mark 2:5-7,Matthew 5:20-21 –
Only G-d can forgive sins.
5. Demons declaring that Jesus is the “Son of the Most High God”-Mark 5:6,
Luke 4:34,41
6. Simon Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the “Messiah, the Son of the Living God”-Matthew 16:17-18,Luke 9-20
7. ‘No one knows the Son except the Father , and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27)
8. ‘Come to me , all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me , for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30)

This is not an exhaustive list . You may refer to video links below for further details.
Do take note that videos (1) and (2) are as a response to muslim polemics, which are similar and I hope can answer your question.

Sister Sharon! I’m sorry for calling you brother.
I still don’t see Yeshua’s acclamation of his being God in any N.T. verses. When i am troubled with those references you’ve listed, i put “word of God” in place of Yeshua himself.
Take care sister.

My time is running out, so bare with me. Firstly the best way to tackle this is to get some basic foundations laid. The first one is the word CHURCH. To define this word we need to see what exactly the church is, and what is meant by the word. I’m starting with this because there are a lot of confused people out there, who with no real fault of there own, are getting confused with Gods overall plan, which is broken down, through history by different dispensations of His salvation plan. To add to that we also see different covenants. Covenants made at different times to different people.
I’m digressing already!!!

Q 1.The Church, what is the church?
A. 1 Colossians v18.

Q2. What is the Church comprised of?
A2. 2 Ephesians v11_16 with Eph CH 3 v6 making a very important point!!

So I hope this has given you something to look at?
The reason I’ve done this, is to hopefully show what is meant by the word church, and who belongs and who doesn’t.
Thanks.
PS If there’s any typos please let me know ASAP.

Paul,
The bottom line is that one belongs to the Church if one believes in salvation from spiritual death through Jesus. And this is the definition of a believer. If I am wrong, please correct me.
And only a believer can choose between good and evil. Non-believers are incapable of good since everything they do is done for ulterior motives (i.e. it comes from their ego which is the flesh which is ruled by satan). Again, if I’ve misunderstood you please correct me.

1. The body of Messiah is the church. The flesh of Yeshua is made of the Logos the word of God (Tanach). The word Church- Ecclesia – means the “called out ones” The Ecclesiastes is the caller’s message to the called out ones (Israelites). Stephen called the ancient Israelites “Wilderness Church”(Acts7:38); When Yeshua said “i will build my church upon this rock, He meant, i believe, he will build church upon his ★CALLING★ of Shimeon into Petra. God’ s CALLING of Jews is Irrevocable!!( Romans 11:29)

2. Gentile Christians must be very careful in interpretating of Ephesians 2:11-16. We gentiles were not even considered as the recipients of the grace of the Jewish Messiah (Don’t forget when Yeshua said to the gentile woman “i was not sent to other place except to the lost house of ISRAEL… It is not right to take the children`s bread and toss it to their dogs.” (Matthew 15:24,26) Why most Christians ADD the doctrine- “FAITH IN” Christ in Ephesians 2:13 &15? The text says not that we became one new man by “our faith in” Christ; No! It says we became one new man in CHRIST!! In other words, we became One New Man in his faith, his obedience, and because of what ★he★ has done for us, not because of how ★we★ believed in him!
How dare you try to graft the roots into the gentile branch? You need to be humble because you were grafted into the root- the anointed ones of Israel.

Church began Acts CH.2 ?
All members were Jews and Jewish diaspora!! The pentecost is how the Spirit of God empowered the existing church, not the birth of church!!
Acts 2:39 says ” The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will ★CALL★”

Well, thanks for teaching me that! You think that when John wrote the following, he was talking about whether the holy spirit can sin or not?

The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ”

Not a single version of the Christian scriptures capitalizes “he” in “he cannot sin because he is born of God”. This bizarre doctrine is yours alone.

1Cor 12:13 “For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”

“1 Corinthians 12 does not even address sin. It is about unity as a Christian organization, by the spirit and by the gifts the spirit endows “believers’ with for the purpose of “building up the church”.

Hello Alan
Just to clarify my point on good and evil.
Believer’s (Christian) who have baptized in Him, The Holy Spirit, can and do sin. They now have the ability to serve one or the other, or of course both, at times. They of course should only serve one, but the flesh being weak causes the conflict. This can be seen in Paul for example, reminding the church at Corinth not to do the things unfitting for a believer, and he writes about his own failings.
Non Christians, non believers can only serve the flesh, because there is no indwelling Holy Spirit.
But that’s not to say a non believer cant still do good deeds and be a moral person, of course they can. This morality of good should be in all humans, alas its not.
But the Bible is very clear that salvation is based on Gods grace through Faith plus nothing. At this point of Gods salvation plan we, the human race are in the dispensation of Grace, not the Law. So only faith in Christ and His works of the Death atonement, can one receive redemption. This act is NOT dependable on how good or bad one is, but based purely on the merit of Faith in Christ by Gods grace.

When Jesus said ” I will build my Church” He was speaking in the future tense. He never said Im adding to it. The church didn’t even exist during the Gospel period. To have the Church as a functional body, one needed His death, burial, resurrection, Glorification, Ascension and the out pouring of The Holy Spirit, Spirit Baptism, which in turn gave Spiritual gifts.
Non of these were present pre Death. There is no mention of the Church in the Hebrew Tanach.
The problem with your view is that it gives root to replacement theology, which in turn nurtures the idea that ethnic Israel doesn’t have no part in Gods prophetic plan.
PS
The rock that Jesus spoke about was the confession of Peter,
‘That you are the living Son Of The Living God”
Its on that confession that the Church is established. A denial of His Deity is a lack of foundation, ie no faith.

Brother Paul, you are right, Yeshua said that He WOULD build his church in future tense. But i don’t think it teaches us that there was no church existing at all. Look carefully the word “BUILD”- “oikodomeou”= Oikos (house)+ doma (housetop). It is not “Laying the foundation and start building up a brand new house,” NO. IT is “ADDING and Renovating UPON the already existing house!” Yeshua would build up= edify= the already existing church = Jews, the called out ones of God of Israel, WHO IS THE ROCK! That is why the NT often use the word “oikodomeou” to mean “EDIFY”

For example, Acts 9:31 says that The “Already existing” church of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was built UP= edified= strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:20 “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building (oikodomeou) on someone else’s foundation.” –> Paul would build and start a brand new church or build and edify the already existing church by preaching the gospel ? the Latter!

If you oppose the replacement theology, I am very glad because it is not what the BIBLE says.

The Rock Yeshua spoke about was the JUDAISM, the Tanackh, and the Jewish People, all of these were possible and meaningful because of God’s irresistable and irrevocable CALLING and exclusive Revealation of Himself. Isn’t that why the soverign revelation of God toward peter’s confession is MORE EMPHASIZED in Mt.16:17?

Alan, I think that Christian will say that the motives of the non-believers are never 100% right. That justifies them to say that even if they are doing good, their motive is still not right with G-d. The only problem is, nobody (even Christians) has 100% right motive all the times… If you go in that level (the heart), Christians are sinning all the times, and anybody that sin all the time is not saved.

Hi RT! I’m glad you’re still around!
GGJ is saying that post-Jesus, it’s impossible to do and be good without Jesus. Paul Summers disagrees and says that it is possible to do and be good post-Jesus without Jesus but paradoxically it’s not possible to choose good over evil because one can only serve the flesh without Jesus. You’re explanation of Paul Summers is that he would say that “good” depends on what one’s motive is. So one can do good and be ethical but in actuality be evil because it’s the flesh that is driving one to do good and be moral without Jesus. So how does Jesus change one’s motives from evil to good according to Christians? Also, this whole idea contradicts what we see in reality because even an atheist can do good and be moral for its own sake and not purely for egotistical reasons.

RT,
Also, according to Paul Summers a Christian who sins all the time will still be saved. He said this explicitly that being saved has nothing to do with being good or bad but only with faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.

” So one can do good and be ethical but in actuality be evil because it’s the flesh that is driving one to do good and be moral without Jesus.”

but it is the christian who says that one is born condemned from the get-go. man is SLAVE of sin. man is born in sin. so how does he know that it isn’t his nature/flesh which is driving him to do good?

MH,
I’d like to see an answer to your question from some Christians. GGJ says that pre-Jesus, people were able to be good and ethical – this seems to contradict the doctrine that from Adam onwards man is completely corrupted spiritually and physically. Both GGJ and PS say (please correct me if I misunderstood either of you) that post-Jesus, people are evil even if they appear to be good until they have accepted Jesus at which point they have been granted the new gift of free-will to choose between good and evil. Your question is how do they know that only by accepting Jesus does one get the free-will to do things from good motives? What is their definition of good motives? And why can’t a non-Christian also have these “good motives?

If a Christian can sin then what does that passage in the NT mean that says a Christian cannot sin?

If a non-believer can only serve the flesh (i.e. satan) then how is it possible they can also do good and be moral (i.e. be good)?

If it was possible before Jesus to get eternal life, why is it impossible post-Jesus without Jesus?

Hello Alan
I’ve just pasted your comment to help keep some continuity in the threads.

The sin nature in a non Christian is on its own, as it were. There is no regenerative side. Seeing as Satan corrupted man originally, and then by Imputation, sin is in man, the unbelieved can only serve that side of himself. This doesn’t mean that person is evil or demonic, it just means that they are serving the fallen flesh.

When I was in the condition of un belief, I could still recognize the difference between right and wrong, good or bad. We all have this ability, some more than others. Some will throw litter on the floor without a care, some would be horrified of doing such.

The sin nature that you commented on is the sin of unbelief. Its not talking about the ability to sin, because all do and can still sin in some degree.

Pre Christ is no different to now as far as Gods grace by faith in God is concerned.
Pre Law, One believed in the God of Creation. The God of Adam, Noah, Job etc.
Post Law its the same God. Still by Grace, through faith.
The Law never saved no one. Its was faith in God.

Today, Post Christ its still God, but the complete fullness of Gods Revelation is through His Son.
God was revealing His plan over time through the Hebrew texts. Christ came to do what was already written.
1 Colossians v 26

Paul,
“The sin nature in a non Christian is on its own, as it were.” Can you please explain what you mean by this? Because if it’s on its own, then why do emotionally healthy people have a good basic working moral compass? Many non-believers risk their own lives all the time to save other people and some are even willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. How are acts of sacrifice like this serving the flesh? And they would do it even if nobody would ever know about it, not even the person they rescued.

You are saying that when that passage says that a Christian cannot sin, it actually means “a Christian cannot do the sin of being a non-believer”? So the passage is saying, “a person who believes in Jesus cannot do the sin of not believing in Jesus”? I don’t get it.

And why Christian do good with bad motive still?
Fact:
1) some Christian do bad things. I guess there motive is bad
2) Some Christians do good. Do they always have good motive? That would be hard to prove and most Christians would say that the motive is not always right.

1) some non-Christian do bad things. I guess there motive is bad
2) Some Christians do good. Do they always have good motive? Are their motive worst than Christians? This would be hard to prove…

Can we say that Christians do more good than other religions? If I compare Jews and Christians, which one does more good deeds with proper motives?

1) some Christian do bad things. I guess there motive is bad
2) Some Christians do good. Do they always have good motive? That would be hard to prove and most Christians would say that the motive is not always right.

Why the New testament show people being just without Jesus? Why was the HS on him without Jesus sacrifice and ascension?

And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.

Thanks RT!
I would like some Christians to tell us if they believe a person can only be good if they accept Jesus’s sacrifice and how they know that only through this sacrifice they acquire the free-will to be good. And most importantly, what is the difference between an act that looks good but is evil and one that is truly good?

RT,
When Jesus says “apart from me you can do nothing” what does he mean by “nothing”? Obviously we see that non-believers can do all kinds of good things, for instance they can build hospitals that treat people of every faith and creed from all over the world for free without proselytizing them (e.g. Israeli hospitals). What does he mean by “nothing”?

Catholic: The Catholic Church teaches that unbelievers can live a life of relative virtue without believing in God. Besides God’s grace being necessary to live the moral law perfectly and merit heaven.

Calvinist, on the other hand believe in the “Total Depravity” of Man. Total depravity (also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.

Commentaries on John 15:5
Those who abide not in “Christ”, though they may flourish for awhile in outward profession, yet come to nothing. The fire is the fittest place for withered branches; they are good for nothing else.

Following the metaphor of our “Lord”, it would be just as possible to do any good without him, as for a branch to live, thrive, and bring forth fruit, while cut off from that tree from which it not only derives its juices, but its very existence also.

Most would agree that non-Christians can do good, but that will not satisfy Jesus as he requires perfection and sinlesness (Of course, unless you accept him as a god).

Thanks RT.
So “you can do nothing without me” seems to really mean “without me, you and all of your accomplishments (even all the good you’ve done) will ultimately be destroyed and thrown in the trash (the fire)”. The Christian has the same struggle with good and evil as non-Christians – the Holy Spirit doesn’t take away the struggle and it doesn’t even appear to make the struggle easier than the struggle that faithful Jews are engaged in in their service of Hashem.

Dina,
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt since it’s a very hard question. On the one hand, the psalm cannot be speaking about Jesus for at least one reason, i.e. the subject of the psalm admits he sinned. On the other hand, Jesus says in the NT that verse 9 (Christian bible) is a prophecy about himself. So how can one verse taken out of context be a prophecy about Jesus while the rest of the psalm is speaking about a person who sinned?

Psalm 41 is David himself speaking. Verse 5, the subject is David: “As for me, I said: ‘O LORD, be gracious unto me; heal my soul; for I have sinned against Thee.”

Verse 10 is still David speaking, still the same subject: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.”

The “I/me” in verse 5 sinned. The “I/me” in verse 10 (verse 9 in the Christian bible) is the same “I/me” as in verse 5. But Jesus says the “I/me” in verse 10 is referring to himself. If the “I/me” in verse 10 is Jesus (as Jesus says it is), then the “I/me” in verse 5 is also Jesus. If the “I/me” in verse 5 is not Jesus, then the “I/me” in verse 10 is also not Jesus, but Jesus has already said verse 10 is him!

Alan, if Paul is a courageous truth seeker he will face up to the question and at least admit that he can’t answer it. Rabbi B. has been trying to get him to answer for years. He keeps ignoring. After all this time I am no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Paul had plenty of time to come up with an answer. He keeps ignoring it because he can’t answer it.

You can be excused for thinking that because Paul hasn’t commented in a long time. Rabbi B. is picking up from last time and possibly the time before that! I think he even asked him this question before he had blocked him from commenting. I honestly don’t know how Paul got back on after being blocked. (You see, CP can get on because he wasn’t blocked, he was just asked to leave.)

Paul, scripturally, there is no difference between god and God. Jesus is not God, but a god. Unless you show clear evidence that G-d could change his mind and do the exact opposite of what he said he would not do (Deuteronomy 7)…

Isa 44:6 — “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

See there is not a second god speaking to a first G-d. There is no trinity and this is totally against the tenet of the Hebrew scriptures. All attempt to prove otherwise will show that you are a polytheist!

Hosea 11:9 – “I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; FOR I AM GOD AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury”… and other verses in Tanakh where He says He’s not a man.

This is my third attempt to write. My phone decided to lose Internet connection, right at the very end of my writing and this morning my tablet just decided to turn its self off, in the middle of my response.

So here goes it!!!!!!!!!!

The sin nature in a non believer non Christian, can only operate on its own merit. Its unregenerate. It can only serve its self. As sin entered into the human experience via Adams fall, via satan, it can only serve the fallen condition. Spiritually it leaves God out of its function. God cannot function or have a relationship with sin.
The Believer, Christian now has the capacity to serve God, with the now regenerative part of his soul. The old part still exists, and they co reign next to each other. However you can only serve God in the Spirit, the part now reborn, the part that came to rebirth through faith by Grace, by the belief in the completed works of the blood atonement.

Christians still physically die, they still get ill, lose hair, joints ache, say and do the wrong things etc etc. This shows that the believer still retains the fallen sin nature.

Non believers, non Christians are not evil. The non believer isnt evil because they aren’t believers, they just have no faith. They have moral a compass, they of course no the difference between right and wrong. Some non believers will probally show more heart and discernment that a Christian. But salvation isnt based on works, its never ever ever been the mode. Its always always been by Gods Grace through faith in Him. That faith has in time gone from one dispensation to another. Now its still The God Of Israel but through the God Man Jesus, who is the full revelation of the Father.

The sin that you spoke about isnt the sin nature or the capacity to sin, its talking about the ability for a believer to be not a believer in Christ. A born again believer can never ever ever ever not be unborn or become a non believer. Once he has been regenerate through faith and the old part renewed it cant be undone. Its a once only experience that can never ever be repeated.
You can never have a un revelation of truth.

Paul,
I notice that we are talking about two concepts: serving God and salvation.
I think I know what you mean by salvation – that the soul isn’t destroyed but lives eternally in the kingdom of God.
But I don’t know what you mean by serving God. You say that only a true Christian can serve God and that it is impossible for a non-Christian to serve God. Can you please explain what serving God means? Please don’t tell me it only means to believe in Jesus because then all you are saying is that “only a Christian can be a Christian”. Is this what you mean when you say that only a Christian can serve God?

First we can only serve God/Christ.
Salvation is our eternal inherited gift.

Christian is a word that unfortunately has many negative undertones. ( Bad and negative history) Its a word which of course means being a believer in Christ.
Jesus said I Am The Way, The Truth And the Life, no one comes to The Father except through me.
John 14 v6.

One can only serve God today through Christ. To do that,Him the Holy Spirit must indwell the person.

Paul,
I understand the best you can say is that a person has to fake it until they make it but there’s no guarantee they’ll make it? You and everyone you know is at best a doubtful Christian. This seems to me a very very sad and depressing way to live. You deserve better. People deserve better just for being created in the image of God.

As per the New Testament, Jesus is the one that really saves you. Some would say that human are actually unable to chose Jesus. If one person has to judge if he is saved by his deeds (even if he is save by faith alone), that makes him goes to a path of despairs. Many are so extreme on their belief only for that reason. It really start with you are saved by faith, but once you are in, you realize quickly that you need the fruits… And of course, how many fruits do you need to show that you are really genuine? And then comes the fear of hell. You mustn’t be one of the tare… you mustn’t doubt Jesus. Now Alan, you understand why so many Christians are unwilling to even listen to you! Any doubts would show that you may not be a true Christian and deserving of hell! Why do you think so few even go to check the counter-missionary arguments. There is nothing logical about Christianity, it is a religions based on fear and reward. Just like the bad husband beating his wife! You better not leave Jesus, cause he will throw you in hell… Of course, it is all covered with a nice icing of “love”! Jesus L.O.V.E.S you,… and you better love him back…

RT,
I can’t even imagine how overwhelming the fear of hell and spiritual death must be for them, as well as the pain of going through life not having a solid self-identity, always thinking they are perhaps deceiving themselves that they are a real Christian. I can’t even imagine living with this level of self-doubt and constant fear of being destroyed.

kavit, how do you know it is not your polluted and sinful nature which is telling you it is “righteous bloody offering” ? Do you talk to ghost which tells you otherwise? You have a problem kavit, it is possible that your sin nature is sending you a POWERFUL delusion. it is probably fooling you about your faith too. When you doubt the 3 triplets ( how can 1 thing exist AS 3 different things kavit?) , then is doubt in faith another delusion coming from degenerate nature or regenerate nature? Maybe doubt in 3 gods is good thing? Maybe doubt here is from another source?

Mr. Heathcliff,
Just to make sure we correctly identify terminology:
[] First, the words “sin nature” do not exist in the B’rit Chadashah/New Testament…
[] Second, the words “regenerate nature” do not exist in the BC/NT…

As such, look to Moses and the Prophets to understand sin and cleansing from sin… there is no other way…none whatsoever…

For myself, I have no inkling what you mean (or christians mean) by the words “sin nature” or “regenerate nature” outside of the teaching of Tanakh…

Alan,
The Messianic believes “service” to G-d is through the offering of righteous sacrifices–

But what does G-d consider a “righteous” sacrifice?

Traditional Judaism says one way and the Messianic says another…

To explore some of this difference, allow me to briefly relay my thoughts on Yom Kippur…

_________________________
Yom Kippur according to traditional Judaism:
[] A Jew who has properly repented of sin, prayed, and does mitzvah “hopes” that he/she is sealed into the Book of Life for 1-year…
[] However, what happens to these hopeful “righteous” ones if they sin 1-second after purportedly being “sealed”?
[] Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.

Conclusion: How can someone serve G-d righteously when they themselves are not righteous according to His Law?

_________________________
Yom Kippur to a Messianic…
[] L-RD Yeshua descended from Heaven to surrender up His sinless life on behalf of mankind– all in order to make an eternal Yom Kippur that stands forever.
[] To receive G-d’s cleansing salvation of the soul, a man/woman has Faith that Yeshua’s Yom Kippur atoning sacrifice satisfies G-d’s judgment against his/her sins.
[] Rooted in Tanakh, the L-RD cannot impute sin to those He made righteous by Faith in Him and His redemption as accomplished through His Messiah. [Psalm 32:2 and Habbakuk 2:4]

Conclusion: When an adopted child of G-d brings his/her righteous offerings of service to Him, how can He not accept those offerings since their soul has been made perfectly righteous according to the Law by Faith?

_______________________Q: What then is a “righteous offering” to a Messianic?

A: Not all service or deeds done by a Messianic are “righteous” [not even supposedly “good” ones, for G-d looks upon the inward man]…only those that originate from the cleansed soul will be rewarded in the world to come…

The point?
[] For all whose souls are “dead” [not cleansed from sin]– no deed can ever be righteous in His sight– no matter how genuine or fervent or “good”…
[] For all whose souls are “alive” [cleansed from sin]– at least some deeds can and will be found righteous in His sight…

Happy is the man unto whom the L-RD counteth not iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no guile. [Psalm 32:2]

Kavi,
What I hear you saying is that you think Hashem – the same one that shows up in the Hebrew scriptures – hates and rejects people’s turning from sin (teshuva) without the taking the life of a sinless living being, i.e. according to the Tanakh, teshuva doesn’t work, simply abandoning one’s evil thoughts and deeds and asking Hashem for forgiveness doesn’t save a person or nation from Hashem’s burning destructive hate. In order to escape Hashem’s hatred and destruction, Hashem requires a human sacrifice and for us to have faith that this human sacrifice will make Hashem stop threatening us with eternal destruction. Without the belief in this human sacrifice we are hated and doomed. You are also saying that according to Hashem in Tanakh, one cannot be righteous until one’s soul has been cleansed of sin through the killing of a living creature. Without taking a life as a sacrifice, one is not righteous and is slated for destruction by Hashem.

“Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.”

Ezekiel says: “And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live” (18:21-22).

“In the continental U.S., we recently observed Memorial Day to remember the people who died while serving in the country’s armed forces…

Let me ask you– If someone you love goes into war and gives up his/her life to save the lives of the platoon, is that a “human sacrifice”?”

This soldier sacrificed his life because he felt that the lives of his comrades were more important than his own life. How is this an analogy to what I wrote about how Hashem treats penitents in Tanakh?

Alan, I disagree. When a soldier risks his life to save others, he hopes he will come out of it alive. He doesn’t think his life is worth less. If he can get the job done without getting killed, no one will be happier about it than he.

Human sacrifice in religion is an entirely different matter for more reasons than I have time to elaborate on right now.

“Alan, I disagree. When a soldier risks his life to save others, he hopes he will come out of it alive. He doesn’t think his life is worth less. If he can get the job done without getting killed, no one will be happier about it than he.”

Dina, I agree with you. I just thought Kavi was talking about the specific type of sacrifice of the soldier falling on a grenade to save his comrades, for example.

“So, I will repeat, “Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.””

Kavi,
Deuteronomy ch. 30 – no killing of living beings required to reconcile with Hashem –

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

9 And the LORD thy God will make thee over-abundant in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good; for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers; 10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. {S} 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Alan,
In Deuteronomy 30 we see written, “and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day.” and “…if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

The commands that Moses wrote did not include sacrifices?
_____________________

The commands did include sacrifices, but sacrifices do not apply in exile and in this passage the people are in exile, they do teshuva in exile and Hashem accepts their teshuva and has mercy and love and joy from them and saves them. The sacrifices come after the teshuva was accepted and after Hashem had mercy on them. This also shows there will be sacrifices after Moshiach comes, something you also don’t accept.

Alan,
Your wrote…”What I hear you saying is that you think Hashem – the same one that shows up in the Hebrew scriptures – hates and rejects people’s turning from sin (teshuva) without the taking the life of a sinless living being”

No– What I am trying to say is that true teshuva is repenting from a false belief system [i.e., the one encapsulated in traditional Judaism’s concept of Yom Kippur]…to one that Moses and the Prophets attest to [i.e., a reliable, eternal Yom Kippur sacrifice].

The concept of sacrifice is important…which is why the Memorial Day analogy may help clarify the “why”– Because G-d loved mankind, He sent His Son into the war to give up His sinless life to rescue people from sin [John 3].

Doesn’t Tanakh teach G-d loves mankind and really hates sin?

_______________

BTW> I must go to work now…but the conceptual differences I wrote about regarding Yom Kippur are fundamental.

“No– What I am trying to say is that true teshuva is repenting from a false belief system [i.e., the one encapsulated in traditional Judaism’s concept of Yom Kippur]…to one that Moses and the Prophets attest to [i.e., a reliable, eternal Yom Kippur sacrifice].”

You’re saying that according to Tanakh, TRUE teshuva is repenting from false beliefs? That’s it?

Kavit, why are you likening your god to a soldier? your god had to do a RITUALISTIC human sacrifice to cool himself down. Without this opening of flesh and nailing of it, this god is very pissed. he created humans and then boxes himself with two choices.

Kill
Or get killed

either burn ppl in hell or allow adam to have children to spread sin and then come down and plan his own ritual killing because he is unable to forgive.

And here is the strange bit, if you don’t believe he came back to life, he will punish you in hell worse than he punished himself

because god loved mankind? if he loved you so much why he left you will roman torture instrument ? Why he left you with human body which you have to eat and drink in your imagination? you have been left with a rotted copy /bloody go between just to have a chat with your god. I don’t tell children to cut neck of chicken before I chat with them, am I more friendly than your god kavit? I don’t tell human’s they are dirty, filthy, scum, “born in sin”
am I more friendly than your “god of love” ?

Alan,
You write,
“The commands did include sacrifices, but sacrifices do not apply in exile and in this passage the people are in exile, they do teshuva in exile and Hashem accepts their teshuva and has mercy and love and joy from them and saves them. The sacrifices come after the teshuva was accepted and after Hashem had mercy on them.”

Just a couple notes:
[] Where does Moses directly say anywhere that “Return to the L-rd” means repentance, prayer, and mitzvot? Nowhere…it is the Rabbis who commit a greatly flawed eisegesis in their misinterpretation.

[] And logically speaking, if repentance, prayer, and mitzvot replaced sacrifices– why did Moses waste so many, many words in the Torah about sacrificing living things at all?

Is the L-RD a man who changes His mind?

Does G-d speak without purpose?

Or, more truthfully, the Rabbi’s replaced G-d’s Word with their own human precepts. [per Isaiah 29:13]

So, no, Moses wrote of Shabbos, feasts, sacrifices, and Yom Kippur with purpose…to direct them toward the Kinsman Redeemer who would come to fulfill eternal redemption…
__________________

BTW> Ezekiel says bluntly that once the exiles return, they will be pass under the rod to be judged– and for those He finds rebellious, their end is most unpleasant. [Ezekiel 20]

As such, how then can one say that “teshuva” brings back the people from exile when,
[1] G-d says He is the One Who will bring the people back?
[2] G-d still finds Jews in rebellion to Him?

“[] Where does Moses directly say anywhere that “Return to the L-rd” means repentance, prayer, and mitzvot? Nowhere…it is the Rabbis who commit a greatly flawed eisegesis in their misinterpretation.”

Read all of Deuteronomy 30 – Moses says directly in this chapter that “return/teshuva” means listening to His voice and listening to His commandments.

“[] And logically speaking, if repentance, prayer, and mitzvot replaced sacrifices– why did Moses waste so many, many words in the Torah about sacrificing living things at all?”

The sacrifices are counted among the 613 mitzvot so they can’t literally be replaced by any other mitzvot. When there is no Temple, the sacrifices are temporarily suspended. There are other mitzvot besides sacrifices that are also temporarily suspended until the 3rd Temple is built. Prayer is not equivalent to sacrifices, neither are teshuva and other mitzvot. They can’t literally replace sacrifices. Prayer is just the closest thing to sacrifices that we have until the 3rd Temple is built. And even when sacrifices will resume, we will still have the commandments to pray and do teshuva.

“BTW> Ezekiel says bluntly that once the exiles return, they will be pass under the rod to be judged– and for those He finds rebellious, their end is most unpleasant. [Ezekiel 20]”

Not 100% of the Jewish people have to repent in order for Hashem to bring the final redemption. This passage says that there will be some rebels who will be separated from those who are redeemed.

“As such, how then can one say that “teshuva” brings back the people from exile when,”
How can one say that teshuva “brings” the redemption? Hashem says so all over Tanakh! “Brings” in the sense of “catalyzes the redemption”, it makes us worthy of the redemption.

“[1] G-d says He is the One Who will bring the people back?”
Hashem tells us all over Tanakh, that He wants us to initiate the teshuva process and then He will finish it. He wants us to circumcise our hearts to the best of our ability and then He will help us do it and He will ultimately finish it on His own. This is all over Tanakh very explicitly.

[2] G-d still finds Jews in rebellion to Him?
As I said above, not 100% of the people have to be worthy of redemption in order for Hashem to bring the final redemption.

Kavi Moses says to return to the Lord according to all that he commanded us – he didn’t command us about sacrifices in exile – and no one said that anything replaces sacrifices in the sense that they become redundant – read “Contra Brown” 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

Hello Alan
I’ll write this as a add on.
Some people claim that they were once Christians. Now by some chance, they say after reading the Bible again, they see there mistake and take up some other faith, and denounce Christianity.

Absolutely no way were those people ever born again believers in Christ Yeshua. They might have attended church, and was brought up in a christian home. However scriptually and postionley they were never baptised, spiritually in the body of the Messiah.

A. Jonh 1 ch 2 v19
B. I was personally brougt up in a church environment, but it wasn’t until I was in the world, sinning, at the age of 36 did I then see the truth about Christ.

Of course my experience proves nothing to you, we can only use the word of God as truth.

Paul,
If I’m understanding you right, that passage that says that a Christian does not and cannot sin only means “a Christian is not and cannot not be a Christian” or “he who believes in Jesus does not and cannot not believe in Jesus”. That’s what that passage means.

I am sure you have met people that would swear to God that they once believed in Jesus as much as you do. Are you saying that a person doesn’t have free-will to believe in Jesus, that even if a person wants to believe in Jesus it’s possible that God will not permit this person to do so or God might trick this person into thinking he believes but God is really refusing to let him believe?

Hi Alan
Not sure How you might think that??
I’m confused now.
Its not yes and no at the same time.

Of course every person has free will, to believe or not to believe. People are not saved by free will but by Faith. They exercise free will, as all can. But one can exercise that free will and refuse what they hear. A Calvinist would go one step further and say no faith required but Gods will only.

2 Peter CH 3 v8.

God doesn’t play tricks.

There are a lot of False Gospel messages out there, and receiving a counterfeit message is extremely common, especially within prosperity teaching, the Toronto blessing etc etc.

These are wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers who have come into the flock. Of course God is not within these “churches” only Satan.The god of this world.
2 Corinthians CH 4 v4
Mathew CH 7 v15.

I still don’t get it. You say that a true Christian can never stop being a true Christian. But we see people who were at one time as true a Christian as you are and yet are no longer. Since you are not a prophet and do not know what is going on in other people’s hearts, how can you be so sure that such people were never really true Christians when they swear they were and there are witnesses who will swear that they lived and behaved as true Christians? This would mean that there is no such thing as a person who has a status as an established true Christian because everyone is suspect of possibly being a fake.

Hi Alan, as per the new testament, you can only be a true Christian if you remain a Christian. This would be the predominant view. In my case, even if I prayed to Jesus and worshipped Jesus as God, the Holy Spirit never was on me, because the HS would never leave a true believer. So, I was not genuine. If Paul would listen to our comments and realize something is wrong with his faith, even if he gave all his money to Jesus and spent years doing missionary work, he would have still deceived himself.

The other view is that once you professed Jesus, you are saved forever. In my case, some people think I am still a confused Christian, but will soon or later realize my mistake. In worst case scenario, I would be rebuked by Jesus when I die for my lack of belief in Jesus.

Hi Alan
Its the wording, true christian, that’s possibly not helping. There is no perfect, holy Christian here on earth, nor has there been. Even the writers of the NT were still capable of sins and were generally still in the condition of sin. But a big but, positionally in Christ there were purchased by His blood and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

I understand that you can’t go a round judging and proclaiming ‘you are not a true christian “. However there is a basis, principle, and true scriptural truth to see and guide one. Most people are not bothered in the subject.
Jesus did teach that tares( unbelievers) and wheat ( born again believers) will grow up side by side.

Paul,
I know you are not saying that there are perfect Christians here on earth. I’m only asking how can you really know yourself that you are a Christian since it is possible that even in the last moment of one’s life, one who was ostensibly a Christian their whole life might reject Jesus? Perhaps some of the Christians you know and love are fakes and even today they are not Christians?

Basically I’m asking one question – can you say of yourself or of any other Christian you know they are definitely a Christian? I don’t think you can say this.

Hello Alan
If and when sone body who confesses that they aren’t actually saved, the timing of the confession is irrelevant. There either are, or not saved.

Of course many would, do, count themselves saved, a Christian, follower of Christ.They probally do go to the grave confessing such. But unless they have spiritually been saved at one very distinct moment in time, then they have only been fooled, and have sadly fooled themselves, resulting in eternal punishment. Mankind cannot be saved by just a little gospel, or any say, any additional false “facts”. Only the very Gospel that is scriptural can save.
1. Works by a individual do not save.
2. No special prayer is required.
3. Confessing Jesus to be, a good Man, to be God, to be a prophet, To be a healer, miracle worker, to be the source of a better life etc etc do not save…… These are all post Acts ch 2.
4. Going to church, singing hymns, praying, Being raised in a Christian home, do not save.
5. Confessing sins do not save.
6 Taking communion does not save.
7. Paying for indulgences do not save.
There is probally more……..?????

I can honestly say that I do personally know individuals, good people who go and are actively engaged in Church life who are not saved.

People go to Church for many reasons, a great number are serving themselves. It can be socially attractive, a sense of belonging, loneliness, habitual, self pride amongst the community, greed, sexual groomimg, the list is endless. I listen to there testimony about why they go to church, a great number never even mention Christ’s death and redemption. Some will say, ive been a Christian since birth etc.

You are correct about fakes. Hopefully discernment will answer, guide any questions.

Paul,
But there are still those who have confessed the death and resurrection and who later leave it. There is no way to tell if someone is really saved according to your opinion (i.e. a true Christian cannot stop being a Christian).

Could you please tell me what service of God consists of? What does it mean to serve God?

I am the best example. Through faith and by Jesus blood only, not by work. I believed for 6 years and I am quite sure that I had the same kind of beliefs as you do Paul. I was Calvinist for a while, but went more middle ground on the issue afterward. I used to preach at my congregation who is middle ground and believe in faith alone which produces good work. What happened, I doubted the trinity and finally realized that it could not be… It’s not because I wanted to go back to my previous sins, or that I wanted to deny G-d. It was actually the opposite. When you read that G-d is ONE, you realize that you cannot accept Jesus if the trinity is not true. There was no evidences and I had to leave Jesus behind…

I understand the best you can say is that a person has to fake it until they make it but there’s no guarantee they’ll make it? You and everyone you know is at best a doubtful Christian. This seems to me a very very sad and depressing way to live. You deserve better. People deserve better just for being created in the image

You say until they make it. I assume you mean heaven? If one was faking it then of course they would be judged accordingly, as a unbeliever.
It is sad, but a scriptural reality. The sadness is sin, and the rejection of the truth.

People are as you say, created in the image of God. That image was marred by sin. God did do something to restore man, back to His image. He sent His Son.

Paul,
What I meant by “fake it” is that according to your opinion you cannot say while you are alive that you are a true Christian so the best you can do is to think and act like a true Christian even if you really aren’t.

To restore the Image of God in Man -does a person need to serve God to do this? If so, what does this service of God involve?

Many people will/do live as believers and confess their faith, but that’s not guaranteeing their final resting place.

I appreciate that ultimately looking at people from the outside and looking into them isn’t a 100% assurance of who they are. But there is a gift of spiritual discernment that can guide one in the right direction on the matter.

After that, finally God sees the heart, and God can see who is a true believer and who is not.
The believers names will be written in the Lambs Book Of Life. This book has already been written. From time past, eternity. There are no surprise’s waiting for a Sovereign God.

Not that I want to play with semantics here. You are basically saying that your right understanding of who G-d is will save you, or not. If Jews don’t accept Jesus as messiah, they have scriptural arguments for that. By refusing to accept your messiah, due to scriptural conflict, they reject the “true” god. So basically, because they want to follow G-d, they refuse to acknowledge your god, and are condemn in hell forever and ever because of that? That does not make much sense. For example, many Jews preferred to kiss the sword, but that very action of giving their life to HaShem, was worst than accepting the cross, and by doing that, even if they though they acted right before G-d, your god sent them to hell… Do I make myself clear?

“Still bother me to see so many Christian no caring if Jesus send 99% of the world in a lake of fire, and still think he is lovely! Creepy!”

RT, respectfully I don’t see the logic with calling Christians out on their notions of divine punishment as being cruel, creepy, or unbending when Hashem himself, in the Jewish Bible literally floods the entire world and all of its inhabitants save for 1 family and two of every animal. Literally 99.99% of everything alive died in the flood by drowning!

Its also true that the whole problem of humans and sinning was not solved by G-d’s flooding of the world, so why do it? Creepy right?

G-d in the Jewish bible commanded genocide to be carried out against people, and lest we forget, Adam and Eve’s personal sin guarantees that even the most righteous people ( the Talmud mentions 4 in Shabbat 55b,) die at least once, solely because of the exchange between the 1st people and the Snake.)

Not to mention the Talmud’s description of a heretic burning in #2

IE we all die, even though we are not Adam, and we did not eat fruit off of a forbidden tree! Creepy right?

It is true that the Zohar contains the story of Adam meeting with us after death at the cave of Machpelah, whereupon he informs people that they die due to their own sin, but this parable doesn’t change what the Talmud says, and it doesn’t change the creep factor of the flood story.

Gehinom was also considered very real to Jews in Jesus’ time, and sure it may be punishment for a limited duration of up to 12 months, but it still isn’t any less creepy.

I find it a little unnerving when I hear people talk about how cruel Christian notions are while they forget things that the Torah and Jewish literature itself clearly say about divine punishment and why it exists.

I’ve heard several Jewish people I know say “Jews dont believe in hell, or sin, or etc.” just because they are trying to draw distinctions with Christianity, when in fact, Christians got a lot of their notions from literature contemporary with themselves and other Jews.

I’ve also seen people get upset with Rabbi Mizrahi because of the sources that he brings that talk about horrible punishments, but the point is, he has sources.

Christian literature itself is not unanimous on notions of hell and punishment.

For example, in the eastern orthodox Church, “hell” is described as being in G-d’s presence, not in another place, but the souls burn because they don’t want to be with G-d. not because G-d does not want to be with them.

That version of hell is sort of paralleled by the Talmud speaking about the coming of the Shekinah regenerating the righteous, but burning the wicked.

True, but the distinction is clear. Many Christian are looking forward to see those branches been thrown in hell as Matthew Henry commented. Natural disaster like the flood looks cruel, and regardless is hard to fathom. I am not excusing how G-d looks like in the Hebrew Bible. Genocides in the Hebrew Bible seem wrong too… I don’t know Jews saying “I cannot wait to see all those Christians/Muslims go in hell, even less writing that in their Commentaries of the Hebrew Bible.

RT,
You’re right. Tanakh and rabbinic literature are not occupied with throwing bodies and souls in everlasting fires or with eternal extinction of souls (eternal extinction is discussed but it’s only a last resort and reserved for supremely bad people).

Yep. At least Judaism does not use Hell as a tool to convince people of G-d. In my opinion, it is a selfish reason to accept Jesus, but it is the only mean used by the Church to convince people to join their group. 1) you are a sinner. 2) all sinners go to hell. 3) If you don’t accept Jesus, you will go there! 4) Repeat step one until unbeliever joins to group 5) New believer repeats steps one with someone else…

Hi Dina
You are only viewing this from mans perspective and not through Gods. The point of salvation even from the Jewish Tanach is by Gods Grace through faith. It has never been any thing else.
There aren’t any “Innocent victims” as you claim, because God has revealed Himself, no matter when in History, to man. Either by creation, nature, consciousness, The Texts, science, Chtist etc. God has always in some form being there to be seen.

Man, created in the Image of God, has free will, by faith to believe. If that is rejected then the “innocent” become culpable.

Paul,
“The point of salvation even from the Jewish Tanach is by Gods Grace through faith.”

This is just not true. Since Adam and Eve to Abraham to today, it is faith combined with not hurting people and doing justice that causes us to find favor with God. Never faith alone. We can prove this to you from Tanakh.

Can you conclude Jesus by looking at a tree? You are confused Paul. You may come to the conclusion of a creator, but the who it was… And in and out of itself, if we conclude there is a creator based on the evidence, we can also conclude that Jesus had a mother and was not G-d…

Alan, the literature isnt preoccupied with it, true, but the same notions are present in the sources.

If we say to Christians that their notions are absurd when its in Jewish sources too, it seems like a pot calling the kettle black.

Sure heretics burning in feces or perpetual anguish is reserved for the “worst sinners,” but there are ethical concerns on the same level.

You said flood victims only lost their bodily life. Ok, so this life isnt good enough to have a full life?

What about debates in Talmud about whether a noachide gets ressurection?

Sure the sources say gentiles have a share in Olam Haba (as a soul,) but there is nothing about them raising from the dead in bodies, (because they didnt keep as many mitzvot.) Thats why its debated.

So, according to these debates David (who killed and committed adultery in action) will be ressurected bodily, but maybe a noachide who hasn’t done those things wont be ressurected bodily, but only exist as a soul because he wasnt observant?

This is To say nothing of punishments that noachides are subject to if they transgress 1 of their laws.

Saying only the body is killed is a copout of sorts to the moral implications of the stories in general.

Some Christians may love the idea of revenge on sinners, but I promise you that nobody in my family was that way, and I promise that many Christians have different views of hell.

When a Christian says “nobody is innocent” and we get upset, does it not bother anyone that Jewish sources state the same exact thing when explaining exactly why humans die?

The Talmud itself says if you didnt sin you would not die.

In fact, all the passages in the NT that mention burning and eternal anguish in the NT are warnings issued to believers in Jesus 1st always telling them not to br arrogant.

“Dont eat and drink unworthily, or you eat and drink damnation on yourselves ” (Paul in reference to a bad beluever pataking in the Eucharist.)

According to the Nach and Judaism, we all die because of Adam.

The 4 righteous men the Talmud mentions only died due to Adam’s sin and not their own. Is that Just? The point here is that this is a theological problem in both communities that we both share

CR,
I don’t believe in eternal torture not even for the worst of the worst. I don’t take “burning in feces” literally, not at all! There’s nothing compelling us to take it literally. I wrote before that the Torah cherishes physical life. Hashem cherishes physical life because we see it in the halacha. We don’t know which Jews or Gentiles will be resurrected. It seems to me that a Gentile who lived a moral bodily life as well as an ethical life is more fit to be resurrected than a Jew who didn’t. Judaism says that we are all born with a pure and innocent soul – no guilt from Adam. Our nature is to die but not because we are born guilty. Even if we didn’t sin, we would still die. But it’s impossible not to sin. I don’t know what the talmud means that several people never sinned. I don’t take it literally. As for Noahides getting capital punishment for transgressing one of the universal laws, I don’t have an answer. I just know this is something that has never been put into practice as far as I know. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they must get capital punishment. I don’t know any Torah authorities who would say that if we had a Sanhedrin today this would be the halacha.

CR,
David did not commit adultery because Batsheva was not married at the time, she was a divorcee as was every Jewish soldier’s wife at the time. The practice of the Jewish people from ancient times was for soldiers to divorce their wives before going off to war. And if Uriah was interested in his wife he would have listened to King David’s command to him to rejoin Batsheva as husband and wife but he made an excuse and refused to rejoin her.

“God? Serving God is an expression and a commandment repeated over and over again throughout scripture.

1 Peter CH 4.”

I read it twice. It says serving God means: 1). to keep our animal lusts in check, 2). to pray properly 3). to do acts of kindness for each other, 4). to do 1-3 for the sake of God even when we suffer and are persecuted for our beliefs.

Paul, you claim that only a Christian can do these things. Are you really unaware that there are non-Christians in the world that do these things all the time?

What I am saying is, if you believe that Jesus was atonement for your sins, and that you accepted that by faith and faith alone. And if you had the fruits of a Christians, like given all your money to the poor and missionary work. Even if you would never believe that you could ever reach heaven with your own merit. Then one day, you would realize that Jesus was not the messiah, than that would prove that you never believed in the first place… Am I wrong or right?

RT,
You are describing yourself. You are telling the truth when you say that you were a sincere and genuine Christian. I believe 100% that you were sincere when you were baptized in the holy spirit, etc… You are a sincere person now. I believe you were a sincere person then. Paul Summers cannot permit himself to believe you. He HAS to believe that you were a wicked deceitful person INCAPABLE OF BEING GENUINE AND SINCERE.

Of course Alan, the New testament say that I am an anti-Christ and that I am trying to deceive Paul Summers. He won’t consider that I could be genuine and that the only reason why I left Christianity was for the fact that it contradicted the Hebrew Bible. In his opinion, I am trying to deceive him… I could not be genuine and really believe that the new testament was a lie, or I am wicked and want to go back to my sins or I am an anti-Christ.

1 John 2: They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[e] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.

Where in Tanakh do Christians get the ideas that Man is:
1. Damned and destined for hell and spiritual extinction from birth
2. Unfit to be accepted by God unless he is sinless
3. Cannot be accepted by God without an atoning blood sacrifice

Most of the people who comment on this blog know that both the Tanakh and those who know the Tanakh the best (the Jewish people) say as clear as day the exact opposite of these 3 ideas. So how can a person read ALL of Tanakh and still believe that these ideas are found in Tanakh?

Alan, those are all taken out of context, mostly by Paul in a way or another.

Where in Tanakh do Christians get the ideas that Man is:
1. Damned and destined for hell and spiritual extinction from birth
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5) (taken out of context)

2. Unfit to be accepted by God unless he is sinless
The soul who sins shall die. Ezekiel 18:20 (taken out of context)

They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. Psalm 14 (taken out of context)

3. Cannot be accepted by God without an atoning blood sacrifice
Ezekiel 18:20 Leviticus 17 (taken out of context)… Understood in conjunction with “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”, found in Leviticus 1239:6, sorry Hebrews 9, but let’s not say it too loud and let’s pretend it’s from the He brews Bible, Ok? 😉

But what about those who have read all of Tanakh? How can they really believe that the NT is fulfilled Torah? How can they believe that Hashem who was consistent in the way he treated Man for thousands of years in Tanakh, all of a sudden around the year 30 CE starts treating Man exactly the opposite – and He doesn’t just start treating Man the opposite way but He tells Man things about Himself and about Man that are the exact opposite of what He told them before?

Alan I think that the answer to your question is that they see the Tanach as a mystery book – giving more weight to what they imagine they see between the lines than they do to what the lines actually say – just read Charles Soper’s comments (search for “Charles Soper” or for “Facing Scripture” to find the relevant articles and comments

Alan, you have to go back with the principle that the new believer are thought that they have been saved by Jesus and that they cannot deny him, or else he will finish in hell. He is also though that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” and this especially true”er” for the New Testament. If the New Testament say something, this is 100% truth even if it seems to contradict the Hebrew Bible. New Believers are not asked to read the book of Leviticus on the first week. They first read the book of the New Testament, often starting with John and the book of Romans. This is the principle of the Christian belief. Also, you have to understand that Jews are portrayed as harden by G-d, so most Christians don’t even think that the Jews could be right in the first place. So you have the enemies of the gospel, and you have your worldview already in place when you even turn your Bible to the “old” testament. This is of course, the OLD testament, which was fulfilled by Jesus, so if you don’t understand everything, or if something looks contrary to the “New” testament, you have to pray to Jesus to remove that doubt. Voila!

CR,
All good questions. I’m not going to get into the question of attempted genocides in Tanakh right now but I just want to make one major distinction between Torah view of punishment and the Christian view. When physical bodies are dispatched in Tanakh it is just the physical bodies not necessarily the souls. In the Flood and the other episodes of death, the Tanakh does not say that their souls were also destroyed.

When I wrote “it is just the physical bodies not necessarily the souls” I didn’t mean to make light of bodies in the slightest. As you know, Judaism cherishes life, both physical and spiritual. I should have just written “it doesn’t necessarily include the souls which outlive the body”.

I think Rabbi Mizrahi is off his rocker and doesn’t speak for a lot of us. Having said that, the main focus of Jews is supposed to be on their behavior in this world and not to obsess about the afterlife, hence the Hebrew Bible’s silence on this. (This is where the rabbi’s scaremongering tactics go wrong.)

It’s all very well to be selective about Talmudic quotes and ignore everything positive in terms of reward that the Talmud says about righteous pagans and non Jews.

Actually, it’s not all very well. It’s just not right.

The Talmud recorded the opinions of all the learned men of the day and included them all, even those we traditionally don’t hold by; thus we can still read the opinions of Beit Shammai even as we don’t follow Shammai. Therefore, to quote the Talmud without keeping this context in mind is blatantly unfair.

What is important is what most religious Jews believe today compared to what most religious Christians believe today. What anyone believed 2000 years ago is relevant but only to a very small degree.

Dina, what Jews believed when the Christian text was written is very relevant. Also, the Talmud states that halacha of beit Shammai will be the halacha in Olam Haba, so I dont see that as irrelevant when you are talking about the Christian view on the fate of “sinners” souls after death. Sources in both traditions say some very unnerving things.

My point is not Rabbi Mizrahi himself, but that he has the sources to back up his off the rocker statements, even today.

Its easy to say that Jews today dont believe in X Y or Z, but if Jews in the past did, is it a Christian’s fault for believing what he was taught?

When I was a Christian, I understood Jesus’ exclusive statement of “I am the way, truth, and life, etc.” To mean a person must live his way, his truth, and his life.” Jesus isnt a club, he had a life path that he wanted people to follow. His people have followed his path closer than any gentile, and I want Christian readers to realize that.

Eastern Orthodox and Catholics believe that a baptized person can have “run the race in vain.”

In the same way a righteous person (such as the the theif on the cross) was not judged by wearing a Jesus badge, but on his repentance.

CR,
David did not commit adultery because Batsheva was not married at the time, she was a divorcee as was every Jewish soldier’s wife at the time.

I understand that this is what the rabbis say. It however doesn’t alter the fact that David had a man killed in order to sleep with his technically “ex wife.”

As for what you take to be literal or not, the intent is clear. You dont use the words “burning in feces” if you mean to convey sunshine ot roses.”

If you are entitled to read that horrible sounding stuff in Nach as allegory, why is it worse if Christians do the same in their books? Thats my point.

Accirding to the plain meaning of the words in the Torah G-d intended man to take from the tree and live forever. So, whether you believe that humans are innocent or guilty, we die because Adam ate a piece of fruit.

“I understand that this is what the rabbis say. It however doesn’t alter the fact that David had a man killed in order to sleep with his technically “ex wife.””

You are extremely smart and you’ve read Tanakh. You can’t really believe that all David did was what you just said he did. If this is all he did, it would have been left out of Tanakh, he wouldn’t be the first Messiah and the father of the final redeemer. Not even the most wicked kings of Israel like Menashe and Ahab did anything close to what you said David did. And you also got the order of the events wrong. What you said he did doesn’t fit with the rebuke the prophets gave him, nor with the punishment Hashem gave him for it, nor with his own confession of what he did, nor with what the rest of Tanakh says about his life and the mistakes he made. Many stories in Tanakh are not meant to be taken at face value – many – and you already know this. Why did Hashem want it to be read this way if it could be misunderstood? One reason is to evoke in the reader horror and disdain for wrongdoing which makes us more sensitive to good and evil; and to show that the wrongdoing was close to being as bad as what it looks like relative to the high spiritual level of such righteous people (much more is epected of great people and for them it was almost as bad as what it sounds like); and to make us realize that in order to properly understand Tanakh we need the Oral Torah, we need to go and learn from Torah scholars.

“As for what you take to be literal or not, the intent is clear. You dont use the words “burning in feces” if you mean to convey sunshine ot roses.””

You’re right that they don’t mean to convey sunshine and roses. But I do not take it literally and they don’t mean the torture is forever.

“If you are entitled to read that horrible sounding stuff in Nach as allegory, why is it worse if Christians do the same in their books? Thats my point.”

Horrible sounding stuff in Nach as allegory? What stuff in Nach are you referring to? I never said David’s sin was allegory. I’m just saying it wasn’t the base degenerate crime you said it was. And I’m saying it based on reading everything said about David in Nach and everything David wrote in Nach and what the Oral traditions say. If you interested in knowing what really happened or the different opinions of what happened, I am sure there are very good essays and audio lectures on it by good torah scholars online.

“Accirding to the plain meaning of the words in the Torah G-d intended man to take from the tree and live forever. So, whether you believe that humans are innocent or guilty, we die because Adam ate a piece of fruit.”

You are an extremely smart dude. You probably realize there is a good chance that a few Jews over the past couple thousand years could give you deeper explanations for why people die than “we die because Adam ate a piece of fruit”. At this point in your life I thought that you would know there’s much more to the Torah and Judaism than what you just said.

Con, the problem with non-Jews and the Talmud is one of lack of context.

Here are some of the contexts of the the Talmud:

1. The Talmud records the opinion of all the learned men of the day, even those that were far out in left field.

2. The rabbis used a literary device called “guzma” (exaggeration) to make their points.

3. The rabbis often (more often than not!) wrote allegorically.

The rabbis deliberately wrote in an obscure manner so that if the Talmud should fall into the wrong hands the readers would not understand it, because they wanted the Talmud to be understood only by Jews. Fair or not, their technique obviously works.

Therefore, if I may be so bold, I recommend that arguments on this blog between Jew and gentile be grounded in the Hebrew Bible and to leave the Talmud out of it.

Alan, the text plainly states what David did. Even the lectures you posted stated that he slept with another man’s wife, and then sent him into battle to die, trying along the way to be incognito about it.

David wanted Uriah to lie with his wife so that he would not know what happened between David and Bathsheba. Uriah already suspected something was up.

The classes you posted suggested that bathsheba was at fault too, (even though it is admitted in the class that for bathsheba to refuse David would have likely had direnconsequences.)

The commentaries make the whole episode more complicated than it needs to be. If you change the plain sense, you are not giving the plain sense.

You said if David did such things he wouldnt have merited what he did. How do you know that G-d couldnt use David if he had been guilty?

Consider also, the baby was killed. Tgat means David sinned terribly.

If you need two five part courses to explain what the text “really means,” are you explaining it at all?

Dina, as per your comments on context and Talmud being obscure, thats the entire point. Its obscure to the point, out to left field to the point that there are opinions which jive with Christian opinions, even when you work super hard to avoid any hint of Christian like ideology.

Alan, I am aware that there are deeper readings regarding Adam’s Sin, but the point is that often these readings require you to almost ignore the plain words on the pages and their implications.

Because this doesn’t relate directly to the post or to the purpose of this blog which is to help people who are confused by Christian missionary propaganda, I would appreciate if you could email your questions to Rabbi B or to me. I am sorry and I hope you understand.

CR,
If it was a short conversation I would have it on the blog even though it doesn’t directly relate to the purpose of the blog. But this topic will be an extended conversation. Again, I’m sorry I can’t have this particular conversation on the blog.

Hi
Sorry again, I don’t always get the chance of replying straight away. Its a bit all, or nothing, with me.

The very reason The NT shows Jesus genealogy through his step Father, Joseph, is to show that IF Joseph WAS his natural biological Father, then He, Jesus had no right to claim the Eternal Throne of David.

How can you know that is the truth? Was there witness? I can know that we need at least two witness to judge a matter. As Joseph, wanted to divorce her, we can conclude that he did not have any evidence of the truth. Dreams cannot be used as proof, I hope you agree with me! So we have only one witness and it is Mary. If you agree that G-d was Jesus father (which you have no proof, historical fact, nor scriptural fact as the New testament is not inspired and not acknowledge by the Jewish people), then Jesus is not a descendant from David and cannot be the messiah. If you agree that Josef was his father, then G-d could not have concived Jesus, and the new testament say lies. You are stuck both ways Paul… You only have to choose which lie you want to follow to arrive at the conclusion that the new testament was not inspired.

There are no claim for Adam and Eve. There is a disputable claim on Jesus, and the Jewish people never bought it. In case of a dispute, you need proofs to support your case. Jesus should not be considered the messiah, until he shows without reasonable doubts that he is. So far, if Jesus is born of G-d and not man, he cannot be from the line of David. If he is born of Joseph, he cannot be divine and most claims of the new testament are false. In either way, it does not seem like a positive outcome for Christianity. If a man claim he has G-d as his father, he better have good evidences and proofs of the truthfulness of it. If he claims he is himself god, he need some, million dollar evidence that proves that, especially that it looks like it contradict the whole Jewish Bible.

Is the subject (the “I/me”) of the verse “my close friend who I trusted and who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me” the same subject (the “I/me”) as in the verse “Lord be gracious to me; heal my soul; for I have sinned against You”?

Jesus says he is the prophesied subject of the the first verse. Does it make sense that Jesus is the subject of one verse but not the other?

John 13:18 –
“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’

Paul Summers,
In this verse, David (the author and subject of psalm 41) laments having had a close friend who betrayed him. Besides Jesus’ having this in common with David (and millions of humans from David’s time until Jesus’ time have also had friends turn on them), please tell me what else in this verse or in any other verse in this psalm points to specifically to Jesus? To claim that a prophecy is about a specific person, the prophecy has to be obvious that it is referring to a specific person. This psalm is David talking about himself. If you claim it is also a prophecy about a person who will live in the future, then either the whole psalm has to fit that person, or the prophetic verse has to be specific enough that we can tell it was referring to that one person out of all of the other people who ever lived. So I’m asking you what else about this verse or the rest of the psalm points specifically to Jesus in contrast to the millions of other people who have also been betrayed by a close friend?

Paul Summers,
Also, you claimed that only a Christian can serve God (control lust, pray carefully, do kindness, do these things for the sake of God despite suffering). Please tell us how you explain the millions of non-Christians since the time Jesus died that have served God.

Hi
First of All the NT has been verified as scripture by thousands of Jews in times past, not just gentiles.
Secondly the very texts were actually written by Jews. So Jews, obviously believed in them.
Thirdly, There were 2 witnesses, Mary and Joseph.
Fourthly Mary was pregnant, there’s the proof. Joseph was right to be worried, that’s why he was warned not to go ahead with the divorce.

“First of All the NT has been verified as scripture by thousands of Jews in times past, not just gentiles.”

Because a Jew read it does not mean and believe in it does not make it scriptures. Who has authority to verify and approve it as scriptures, and who did approve it as scriptures? Regardless if the people who approved the book of the new testament were Jewish or not, they did not have the authority to confirm them.

If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. 9 And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. 10 You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you.

Jesus was a matter of controversy, and the Levites, the Priests and the judges all agreed he was not the messiah, not G-d and not to be listened to.

The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.

“Secondly the very texts were actually written by Jews. So Jews, obviously believed in them.”

Really, it could be written by Jews or not. We have not idea who wrote many of the new testament letters. Luke might be the only Gospel that we know for sure who wrote it, and he was a gentile. Look at Paul’s letters: “and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather to an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century. Most scholars now affirm this view. As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul’s day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works.”

And again, this is not the debate, but even if all the new testament was written by Jews, it does not change the fact that he was judged by the authority of the time and confirmed a false prophet.

“Thirdly, There were 2 witnesses, Mary and Joseph.”

What do you think a young girl who is pregnant and might face death penalty might do? For Joseph, he only had a dream, and did not witness any miraculous act of conception…

“Fourthly Mary was pregnant, there’s the proof. Joseph was right to be worried, that’s why he was warned not to go ahead with the divorce.”

That would not stand at a court trial…

There is this crazy case in the news right now. A guy committed atrocious acts because god, or satan told him to do so. What do you think of his testimony in the court of justice? Do you think any of the jury believes that he heard a voice? Sure, this is quite possible. Do you think anybody in the jury believes god or satan talk to the guy? No, not a chance! Would you believe any 12 year old girl who would come to a similar story today? No, not a chance that you would believe her. How can you say it is a proof then?

You say Jesus is quoting the Psalm in its entirety. Start to finish. Verse by verse.

I honestly don’t see this being the case. Its not a case of me misreading the text. I can only state what Jesus quoted. Jesus didn’t say the “entire Psalm of David speaks of Me, This Psalm is Me”
He simply doesn’t say such. Unfortunately you seem to think it does, because, of course you hold a opposed view of Jesus.

Because the Psalm mentions sin in David’s life, I think the best angle to approach this subject is to find a passage that reveals Jesus as being a sinner. If sin can be found then we can conclude your position to be correct.

Paul,
I didn’t say that at all.
I’m asking how can anyone take one verse and say it is a prophecy about himself – that he is fulfilling the prophecy -when the verse could be referring to millions of other people and actually seems not to be referring to him if taken in context of the surrounding verses?

Hi Alan
The text in context is about friendship being broken by betrayal.
The psalm speaks of friendship so close that the breaking of bread is used to show how close they were, and the intensity of the friendship being broken.
In the context of the Passover meal, Jesus is breaking bread with His friends and one of the group will betray Him. David wrote the psalm because he was grieved with a process of betrayal.
In the context, so was Jesus.

The person, David was NOT King Messiah, he was king of Israel. A man born a sinner, a adulterous man who had to repent of his own faults.
Messiah Jesus had no sin to be forgiven of.

The only parallels between them is that they both experienced betrayal from a friend. Jesus isn’t saying let Davids life of a king be fulfilled by Me, So let the Scriptures be fulfilled, He is saying, Betrayal of a friend be fulfilled.
Jesus never said Psalm 41, start to finish is me.

Lets Find a text that reveals Jesus as a sinner, then you have a case.

Hi Alan
I think you have gone off piste here. You need to stay focused. You correct about our friends etc, but the Bible is talking about Firstly King Davids betrayal, then Jesus betrayal. Its not about me or you.

Betrayal of course is universal, yes, but here it is directed at two individuals, not the world.

“RT,
You are describing yourself. You are telling the truth when you say that you were a sincere and genuine Christian. I believe 100% that you were sincere when you were baptized in the holy spirit, etc… You are a sincere person now. I believe you were a sincere person then. Paul Summers cannot permit himself to believe you. He HAS to believe that you were a wicked deceitful person INCAPABLE OF BEING GENUINE AND SINCERE.”

If I may, Alan, this was also leveled at me by Bibs, Paul and by Kavi. All ( as well as all my former Christian brethren) believe I was never a “real” Christian to begin with or I would not have left. While at the SAME TIME tell me my leaving was because I HAD TO BE “hurt” emotionally somehow by someone in the church. BTW, that is the MAIN ( almost the only) reason given by churches as to why people leave Christianity. Could it POSSIBLY be that I had a sincere love for God and the truth, and that Christianity was in the final analysis incompatible with Tanakh, which came first?
They say no.

The same argument is put to those Christians who change churches. Mainline churches literally picket Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and like here, respond to arguments they are losing with “You don’t have the holy spirit”, or “You’re being led by the devil”. The same accusations are made between Protestants and Catholics. Between Methodists and Calvinists. Between Messianics and Presbyterians.

Take Bible 318, Kavi and Paul Summers and put them on an all-Christian forum and they would be going at each other as hard as they are going after us! And they would all be saying why each other lack the holy spirit and scriptural discernment. They band together here because we are “the enemies of Christ”, as per the text RT posted about the antichrist. Any other forum and they would be telling EACH OTHER why they are not saved!

What surprises me, is that no Christians can arrive with any arguments that could show the new testament is inspired. I actually wonder how I could have fall for such a thing. Now prophecies, a bunch of Bible verses taken out of context and fear of Hell. I do not see anything special that could hint the “Church” as filled with the spirit, Churches and congregation are often little click of people who think the same way and criticize others who don’t think the exact same way and label them as “unsaved”. If you look at the history of the Church, I would say that it is easy to label as “bad fruit” but the excuse that they use is “they were not saved”. Even their beloved Luther and Calvin were a bunch of Jew haters and only since a few years the “love” the Jew. Actually they love them so much, that they copy them in order to lure them into their Church!

RT wrote: “Actually they love them so much, that they copy them in order to lure them into their Church!”

Or to satisfy their Christian member’s curiosity of Judaism in a controlled setting. That way the church can dictate or manipulate the information and interpretation of meanings and scriptures. I have no doubt in my mind that this is the case.

Eleazar: That way the church can dictate or manipulate the information and interpretation of meanings and scriptures.
Q&A:
For that very reason, Israel is still Exiled?????????

If you disagree- Hang up the Gloves

God Says:

Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth– then my judgments go forth like the sun.

In as much as the ( Prophets, Teachers, Leaders, Guides) led Israel astray.

Prophets

Ezekiel 14:14
even if these three men–Noah, Daniel, and Job–were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Jeremiah 14:14
Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.

1 Kings 18:22
2Then Elijah said to the people, “I alone am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men????

Guides/Leaders(Isaiah 3:12)
My people, your guides lead you astray;
they turn you from the path????

Point Being, Man manipulates scripture.

No difference between Israels’ past Guides = Todays Church Guides.

King David said it best!
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me.

Bible819,
You said “David said it best”.
Do you think David said that one verse best or do you also think that psalm 51 says it best as a whole? If you read psalm 51 as a whole I don’t think it is what you want to hear. Do you want to know what David is really saying or do you only care about that one verse taken out of context? David is talking about his free-will to do teshuva without blood sacrifices and Hashem’s grace and compassion to accept our teshuva without blood sacrifices. David actually says that it isn’t the sacrifice that nakes us right with Hashem but teshuva. Sacrifices help in the right time and place but they are neither essential nor necessary to gain Hashem’s forgiveness and acceptance. You’ll note at the end of the psalm that sacrifices will only be favored by Hashem again after the forgiveness and acceptance have already been attained.

A broken and contrite heart.(Isaiah 57:15)
+
“But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.<<<<<< Word,(God is the Same God)

I believe that Jesus and the Father are 1.
_________________________________
And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that (every) imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
+
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me.
=
As I said, Mankind.
No difference

In comment regarding dreams, you seem to take the view that a dream is just imaginary mind wonderings. However in the context and in light of God speaking through dreams, the mode wasn’t a new phenomena that NT authors had just constructed.

There are obvious characters from the Hebrew Bible that had dreams.

Peter commentated on Paul’s scriptural, and spiritual life, and made the comment that Paul’s writing as been equal to the Hebrew texts.

“Because the Psalm mentions sin in David’s life, I think the best angle to approach this subject is to find a passage that reveals Jesus as being a sinner. ”

David: “I was betrayed by a close friend. Bummer”
Jesus: “So was I. I must be the messiah”
Christians: “See? Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah will be betrayed by a close friend. As goes David, so goes messiah.”

But then-
David: “I’ve sinned. God forgive me”
Jesus: “I’m Perfect”
Christians: “That is not a messianic prophecy. It is just David speaking of his own struggles”

Bottom line, any similarities that can be retroactively applied to David is applied as a messianic prophecy. Anything that cant is not a prophecy.

In other words, to Christian apologists, if David wrote about keeping Passover, it is a messianic prophecy applicable to Jesus. If David wrote about entering a chariot race, then it is NOT a prophecy applicable to messiah…

UNTIL…

a Christian says its a metaphor for entering the contest of messiah against Satan. Jesus being tempted by Satan. Then it becomes a messianic prophecy.

HOWEVER…

If David loses said chariot race, it is then NOT a messianic prophecy.

UNLESS…

If he wins it, then it is a metaphoric messianic prophecy about Jesus overcoming the temptations of Satan.

“the first thing to note is that this psalm appears to be a penitential prayer , and perhaps to be used by a royal figure who is ill and has his enemies plotting against him while he is in a vulnerable state. Indeed , there is a reference to the supplicants sick bed (). More importantly , the suppliant INDICATES that he is ill because he has sinned.”

why is he in a vulnerable state? Because he is ill. Why is he ill? Because he sinned.

You forget that John isn’t cut and pasting what he decides, he He repeating the words of Jesus. Its a written account of a event that happened.
John isn’t adding 2 plus 2 making 5. Jesus is simply referring to a betrayal that was pre recorded from a historical text.

You use the words, appears, penitential, and perhaps.
You seem here to have doubt’s on your own views?? 100% not, but could be something else, but not sure??

maybe a royal figure who FOUND himself in similar situation as the psalmist and then in that situation calling out to GOd? As you can see I put the words in quotations because it was a clear and short commentary exposing Johan misuse of psalms.

IT is scholarly consensus now that the gospel writers do cut and paste verses from the Hebrew bible and put it in Jesus’ mouth. And do you not find it strange that they never source eyewitnesses but Hebrew bible?

Paul,
I will answer if you answer my questions first – the last question I asked you: What was Jesus’ purpose in revealing to us that he is fulfilling that verse in psalms? And how do you explain the existence of non-Christians serving God because you say only a Christian can serve God.

I will answer you if you answer these questions first (because I asked you first).

Hi Alan
1. Simple, A betrayal by a friend. Nothing more.
1a. This passage wasn’t meant to prove, there and then, “This it Guys, the only proof you need”. Its just one, just one, of authenticating signs, fulfilments, that show, reveal His credentials, from the Hebrew texts that He was fulfilling everything written about Messiah. Going into more depth He was actually revealing the Man of Sorrow s. Context shows that the sign wasn’t for the world on mass THEN, but just for the group, there and then.

2. From the NT stance, one can only serve God if Him, The Holy Spirit has regenerated the dead spirit of a non believer. A dead spirit cannot serve God.

One has to be born anew, born again, or born from above, according to John CH 3 v3.

David is exposed to being attacked and betrayed because of his vulnerable state. He has no choice. your god was “willingly going to his death” and needed betrayal for the plan to work. The clip john clipped from psalms is taken completely out of context

“Its just one, just one, of authenticating signs, fulfilments, that show, reveal His credentials, from the Hebrew texts that He was fulfilling everything written about Messiah.”

He was showing that he was fulfilling everything about the messiah. So one of the signs of the messiah was that a friend would betray him?

“From the NT stance, one can only serve God if Him, The Holy Spirit has regenerated the dead spirit of a non believer. A dead spirit cannot serve God.
One has to be born anew, born again, or born from above, according to John CH 3 v3.”

You told me that the definition of serving God is in Timothy – control lusts, pray seriously, do kindness, suffer for the sake of God. Are you saying that when a person like me does these things, it only look like I’m serving God but what I’m really doing is serving the flesh because I am a dead spirit?

Paul Summers Not “one fulfilled prophecy” one out of many lies – what would you say if we quoted one verse out of a chapter to disprove your idolatrous claims? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

“Let’s look at Deut CH 31 vs 27~ 29c
Is Moses talking about Israel, The Jews, of that generation only, the next couple of following generations, or Israel then and history to come. ( Present day)
What and when are the latter days?”

Moses might have known exactly which generations he was referring to but I don’t think the people could have known except through prophecy. It’s not clear to me what is meant by “in the end of days”. Perhaps it means in the few generations preceding the Messiah? I’m not sure.

“Also
Deut CH 18 v15a~ 22b
So who wants to cherry pick this one”

These are the basic laws of prophecy – how the people can tell the difference between a kosher prophet and a false prophet. Also see Deut. 13:1-6 for more of the basic laws of prophecy.

Paul Summers This is a laugh – you don’t know that the “you” of Scripture is Eternal Israel – that Israel is one entity throughout the generations? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

Looking at YPF answer, you will see he is correct. When Moses was referring to Israel as a nation, he meant the Jews then, and the Jews to come.
God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc. This is a scriptural point of view of Israel. Its very clear.
What also is very clear that from the Hebrew texts God has kept for Himself, For His Name sake, a small remnant of True Jews that does not backslide. This also can be seen from scripture.

Go back 2000 yrs in time you of course will read about a Man of Nazareth, claiming to be the Messiah, Son Of David. You will also read that the Leaders of Israel finally rejected this Mans claim, on the Grounds of demon possession. Math. CH 12.

However in comparison to the nation rejecting Jesus a moderate size of Jews Did believe in Him. The believing remnant.

So you see context is everything. If you compare the deut text with say Zech CH 12 you will see two thirds being cut off from the living, and one third coming through by faith. But deut says “All”. So you see a apparent error in the continuity. Not at all.

God has preserved a remnant. Presently those Jews are in the Body of Christ.

Looking at Psalm 41 now, you are saying that the one verse is conveniently used by Christian to uphold a view, and when its convenient ignore the other verses.
But as discussed previously not all the texts have to be read in one clump.

Most times you have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of scripture to see the greater detail.

Sometimes it not just black and white. There are systematic, theological rules to follow which need to be adhered to, because the alternative is confusion.

Paul Summers,
You are an antisemite to the tee. “God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc.” You read Tanakh like all of the Church fathers, Luther, etc. You are not here to learn. You are here to have a platform to preach, to appear as a martyr and to annoy.

“God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc.”

Whit that point of view, why are you here, or reading this blog or commenting on it? If we are degenerate and backsliding, then you must be right. And if you are right, then you do not need this blog, and you are not here to have a grown up conversation, but only to evangelize.

Paul Summers Not “one fulfilled prophecy” one out of many lies – what would you say if we quoted one verse out of a chapter to disprove your idolatrous claims? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Of course you do, you need to try and show me. If you said you didn’t then Moses would be a false prophet.
Please go ahead a fulfill Moses words.

Hi,
Antisemitism as viewed from yourself will always be the argument that one uses, when one is challenged with Scriptural truth. Its basically a race card. Which is soooooo booooooring. Yawn.

The point I was raising. Which you still fail to see is that if Israel as viewed from Jehovah Himself says “Israel consistently deny me etc”, why does it seem so incredulous that at most you deny the Bible’s actually view on Jesus The messiah. You are actively and willfully
doing what Moses said you would do. Well you are, that’s my point.

I’m here, to counter your view on the NT

But since I serve a Jewish God, read a Jewish Bible, study the Scriptures from a Jewish Dr in Theology etc, hardly I’m sure makes me a antisemitic.
Funny that only today I managed to start a conversation with a Portuguese guy. After a few moments, we were talking history, he mentioned that he didn’t recognise Israel as owner’s of the promise land. He was in fact very antisemitic with his views on The Jew’s world domination, banking and all the other conspiracy bull which has been spewed out over the centuries. Of course I had to tell him is error of such views.
And here you are accusing me of antisemitism. Go figure??

Paul,
I am grateful that you stuck up for the Jewish people today. But even though you don’t consider yourself an antisemite like that guy, you do hold some antisemitic Christian views as shown in your post.

RT,
Paul Summers has to come up with a theology of why it was possible for people to serve Hashem without an intermediary before Jesus came into the world but after Jesus came into the world it suddenly became impossible without Jesus. I would love to hear this theology.

How can anyone say a specific verse is a prophecy about himself WHICH HE FULFILLED when the verse is so general it can apply to millions of people AND the verses before and after the verse don’t fit the person’s life?

Hi Alan
Yes this guy was furious to say the least. He actually stated that ethnic Jews don’t even exist today.!!! Sad

Anyway, the points I make about Israel and non believing Jews, are not antisemitic. The points that I raise, and the way they come across, are only given to make you and others see in a certain way, to make my point. That point being sin, regardless of race, but redemption through A Jewish God.

Hello
That’s a great verse, It teaches that The God of Isreal is telling the Jews that they are His standard bearers, as it were. That they, should be reflecting Gods glory etc.

Unfortunately though because of there sin, this failed on a national platform.( OT Prophets, Mathew ch 12). However as God promised, the covenants still stand, but this can only be seen through by the believing remnant. The remnant that believes by faith in God.

Not with their mouths but with their hearts.

Of course God will always protect the Jew from a overall destruction because, as the text says” you will be my witnesses”.
Paul says “Salvation is by/from the Jews. But you cannot be a witness if you have no faith, from a NT position only Jewish Messianic Jesus followers are a witness.

” still stand, but this can only be seen through by the believing remnant. ”

Are you trying to cover a replacement theology? Jews who believe in Jesus are not Israel. Their core belief has changed, You see, in your view, the covenant still stand only if and when a Jew accept Jesus. If he does not accept Jesus, he is worthy of hell fire. It really makes no difference that you don’t believe that the Church replace Israel, because that Israel that you believe in is NOT Israel in the first place, but a bunch of apostate Jews. So yes, you don’t believe that Israel’s covenant is still standing the way it always did and as G-d promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Paul,
I’m sorry but your reply wasn’t 100% clear to me. Could you please answer yes or no: Are the Jewish people worse than the other nations? (Because you said the Scriptures promise that the Jews will ALWAYS be degenerate, backsliding and adulterous).

Paul , why do the Jews have to pay double for their iniquity, and still G-d be angry and throw them in hell? “Speak comfort to Jerusalem, and cry out to her, That her warfare is ended, That her iniquity is pardoned; For she has received from the Lord’s hand Double for all her sins.”. After G-d punished them the double of what they have done by the hand of all the nations, G-d speak comfort to Israel, not wrath. The Christians are part of the nations who were used by G-d to show judgment. Yes, they pay, and yes they paid more than what G-d wanted. That’s what Isaiah 53 said: “yet we considered him (Israel) punished by God”. That’s what you believe, that G-d still punished Israel for their rejection of Jesus, isn’t’ it? Jesus did not bring comfort to Israel. I would said, that you have to discard 2000 years of history if you want to believe that Christianity brought comfort to anybody. Yet, G-d speak of Comfort to his people, and you want to convince me that G-d still wants wrath?

Paul Summers OK – so you believe in replacement theology – perhaps you pay lip-service to the words “Israel is still a chosen nation” but you eviscerated those words of all meaning 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

Hello RT
God Did promise all the covenant’s to Israel, yes that’s correct. But like all scripture teaches, man, in this context, Israel have to believe, by Faith, for the promise to be applied.

Of course the Abrahamic covenant is not a conditional covenant, its unconditional, God will see it through to the end, no matter how Israel acts. But Israel will have to repent on Her views about The Messiah, for that covenant to come into force. There has to be an act of faith and obedience. Which of course will come, one day. As God promised.

Paul, that act of faith and obedience should not contradict the Tanach. G-d is not a man, and he promised not to become one (Deut 7). Basically, there was a new guy who claimed to be god and said that we should believe in him. Why should the Jews believe in him, if it contradict the word of G-d?

Context and specifically the verses in question in both accounts are being fulfilled.
There are no other texts that show a similar in counter. Agreed, Psalm 41, at the time of writing was not intended to show a prophecy then. Let’s say 50 years after the Psalm Was written, nobody was looking at a event of betrayal in one who was claiming to be the Son of David. However once the said event event had taken place again at the Passover, the specific text was mentioned and brought to light, the similar event was betrayal, that’s all.

You are correct, the act of betrayal could and I’m sure does happen thousands of times everyday to lots of people.

However only here is it recorded at a important time in history, for a very specific purpose.
The NT doesnt make a claim that Jesus is fulfilling the entire Psalm.
This argument is based solely on distraction rather than content.

You’re saying that the context of the verse in psalm 41 was also fulfilled at the Last Supper? The context doesn’t even hint to a seder let alone Passover. The context is about a sick man who is trying to do teshuva and is begging Hashem not to let his enemies triumph over him. So what was Jesus trying to teach us by pointing out that he is fulfilling the prophecy of this verse in psalm 41? What was his point?

Hi Alan
You seem to read a lot into my texts which aren’t there and dismiss which is there??

The act which has been mentioned at least, well I’ve lost count! Was the act of betrayal when breaking bread. Breaking bread wasn’t just a Passover observed ritual, I’m sure you are aware of this??
Now you bring the content of a Passover meal to the table, no pun intended!!

Who mentioned that the context had to be a Passover meal from the Psalm to connect it to Jesus. The texts say nothing about the type of meal for it to be a fulfillment. You seem to be bringing in your own arguments and versions of events to discredit the point of view.

’m sorry but your reply wasn’t 100% clear to me. Could you please answer yes or no: Are the Jewish people worse than the other nations? (Because you said the Scriptures promise that the Jews will ALWAYS be degenerate, backsliding and adulterous).

I can only give you an answer based on what the scriptures say. The Bible doesn’t say that they are worse than other nations. God strictly told them to obtained from the nations adulterous ways. So other nations must be seen as fallen equally. So the answer is no.
The point I was making was that, because God entered into a special relationship with Israel, like no other, then Israel will receive double for her sins.

The point the scriptures make are that Israel on the whole will continually fight against Gods statutes, but God will always have a believing remnant within the nation.

Not all Jews will stay in a state of unbelief because scripture very clearly teaches that Israel will turn back to God, and God will receive them. Israel the remnant that is.

Paul,
I’m asking for your forgiveness for calling you an antisemite.
You know, however, that the NT says that the Jews are worse than non-Jews. You know this right? Do you not accept what Paul wrote that the “Jews are the enemies of humanity” (paraphrase).

You wrote: “Not all Jews will stay in a state of unbelief because scripture very clearly teaches that Israel will turn back to God, and God will receive them. Israel the remnant that is.”

This is against Tanakh. Tanakh says that not just the faithful remnant will return to Hashem. It doesn’t even make sense that the faithful remnant will return to Hashem because they are ALREADY faithful. The ones who will return to Hashem are those who are not faithful. Tanakh says that many Jews and non-Jews who ARE NOT FAITHFUL will return and be accepted by Hashem. Today’s faithful remnant of Jews are those who keep shabbat, kosher and the other basic laws of the Torah according to the direction that the Jewish people received from Moses.

14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Judea that are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from telling the Gentiles how they may be saved. As a result, they continue to heap up their sins to full capacity; the utmost wrath has come upon them

Paul isn’t against Jews or any nation. He does though speak about the certain Jews who are opposing the Gospel message. But His view is targeting specific individuals not all Jews. Paul’s views are bold in his speech, yes, but he is passionate about the truth not being tarnished and the message being corrupted by a few who were bringing in destructive teachings, or by complete non believers, the Leaders of Israel.

Paul shows his continued love for his kin through several texts.
Paul insisted on preaching to the Jew first, he still observed some Jewish traditions, and publicly rebuked Peter in Antioch. CH 2 v11, for being a hypocrite against Jews.

Just as Paul was a Trailblazer for Judaism He became just as passionate after His New Birth.

In regard to the remnant. What I meant was that the ones who don’t believe, who then do, are the remnant. There will be a number who will not believe, ever, the non remnant.

Yes, at this moment in time Thousands reject Jesus as Messiah, but one day in that number thousands will return to Him, by faith, but not all.

Paul, I know you ignore all my comments, but regardless… Could you imaging the possibility that you could even be wrong? There are three possibility, logically speaking.

1) You are right and we are all wrong
2) We are right and you are wrong
3) We are both wrong.

If you come to this blog, you have to acknowledge that there is a chance that you could be wrong. I could be wrong. Can you be wrong about Jesus? Are you willing to consider that you could be wrong about Jesus?

Answering just one of your questions here, I am trying not to miss you
Of course we all make mistakes, me more than most.
My grammar, spelling can be questioned, sometimes my attitude, my response’s, even wrong, Biblical quotes, sometimes out of context.
Having said that, I will defend my Position as a believer and defiantly defend on what I see as truth in relation to the Bible, and it teaches. That being the basic foundation of the Gospel message.

I can only do this with Gods Grace, through the power of His Might, by the Indwelling Holy Spirit.

“[] In light of Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 20, why do you believe the rebellious ones won’t be in the majority?”

The Tanakh is not clear about this, so we just don’t know. All I can say is what I see today which makes me hopeful – from a recent survey taken in Israel – most Jews in Israel today ,about 2/3, are either orthodox or traditional. Outside of Israel pretty much only the orthodox are faithful. The orthodox are about 10% of American Jewry but they are the only ones who are really reproducing. Ultimately, only Hashem can judge who is “faithful enough” to be alive at the time of the final redemption. This is something we can’t know by looking at a person from the outside or even from just talking to them. They might not look very “faithful” but who knows what good things they have done in their lives? Only Hashem knows. And even if someone does not physically live through the redemption, spiritually they might be just fine.

“[] Also, from what I understand, you described “return” as rabbinic teshuva in Deuteronomy 30. Are you excluding the “faithful” from Deuteronomy 30?”

The verses say clearly what teshuva is –

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you will take it to heart among all the nations, where the Lord your God has driven thee, THIS MEANS THE PENITENT (BAAL TESHUVA) WILL REGRET AND FEEL GUILTY FOR HIS BEHAVIOR, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP OF TESHUVA

2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; SECOND STEP IS TO TURN AWAY FROM ONE’S PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR AND TO BEGIN TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS ACCORDING TO GOD’S INSTRUCTIONS TO MOSES.

I don’t understand your question: “Are you excluding the “faithful” from Deuteronomy 30″

Hello Alan
Paul is referring to the Jews who were in his immediate vicinity. The ones who were causing strife either with him face to face, or the ones who, geographically at a distance, were preaching against him.
Paul emphasized his rebuking on those particular Jews because as Gods standard bearer’s, then should have known better.

“Paul is referring to the Jews who were in his immediate vicinity. The ones who were causing strife either with him face to face, or the ones who, geographically at a distance, were preaching against him.
Paul emphasized his rebuking on those particular Jews because as Gods standard bearer’s, then should have known better.”

But what are you basing this reading on? The plain words “the Jews” mean Jews in general. If he just meant specific Jews why wouldn’t he have said who these specific Jews were in order not to confuse his readers since he was writing also for future generations? And why is he not also picking on the Romans? Instead of saying “the Jews” he should have just said, “the enemies of Christ” or “the enemies of God” which would not single out the Jews.

Paul,
You write: “Paul is referring to the Jews who were in his immediate vicinity. The ones who were causing strife either with him face to face, or the ones who, geographically at a distance, were preaching against him.”

In his immediate vicinity or the ones far away who were causing him strife?

But Paul writes: “the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. ”

Paul Summers, are “the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets” the Jews in Paul’s immediate vicinity or in his day? You say he was only referring to specific Jews in his day. This text contradicts your claim.

“Having said that, I will defend my Position as a believer and defiantly defend on what I see as truth in relation to the Bible, and it teaches.”

Paul, how could you say that you cannot be wrong? Think about it, everybody think they are right, but if you are unwilling to listen to others, you will never get out of your own folly if you are wrong. If you really love truth, and G-d, then, it is worth testing what you believe. G-d is not pleased with you if you believe a lie and are unwilling to listen. How do you expect us to listen to you, but not the other way round?

“Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
If you are willing and obedient

But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.
But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered.
Ezekiel 18

This shows that when we do right, G-d forgives us and if we turn from doing right, G-d won’t remember the good we previously did.

Hello YFP
– so you believe in replacement theology – perhaps you pay lip-service to the words “Israel is still a chosen nation” but you eviscerated those words of all meaning 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism

I’m not sure if your understanding of replacement theology is the same as mine???

From my standpoint replacement theology is when the church replace Israel. They say the church has always existed, or now the church has spiritually, ethnically replaced Israel, They cherry pick blessings for the church and curses for Israel.

I’ve never ever held these views or even propagated such ideas here.
I honesty cannot see why you hold and accuse me of these views?

I’ve made my position on Israel extremely clear on all occasions when possible.

I do NOT pay lip service to Israel and Her covenanting promises made by God. The covenanted People, ethnic Jews, Israel will, do own ALL the land and all Gods promises contained therein, according to scripture. The Church has no ownership of Israel, nor will it ever own such.

The church, The Body of The Messiah, The Bride, not The Wife, partake in Israel’s blessings and participate with Ethnic Israel the remnants, but no way, ever, ever, ever overtake or replace the Jews. Those promised covenants still belong to Israel The Jews.

Paul Summers First of all – since when do you consider “cherry-picking” wrong? Second – what is Israel’s role in God’s plan? You allow them to be recipients of blessing but you deny them the blessing of being God’s armor bearers – so yes – you have replaced Jesus for Israel (you have put him in place of God as well) 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

Cherry picking is OK??? Odd! So you must consider replacement theology OK?? Even odder!

Gods overall plan in regard to Israel, is to establish Atonement for sin. He established Israel to bring forth and reveal His Grace, and redemption for mankind.
He established a nation to bring Himself to the point of Death to pay the ransom price required to bring fallen man back into His presence. God gave Israel the Law to reveal the sin nature, and to reveal Gods Holy standard.

Israel are the prince of God, but Yeshua IS The Prince Of God par excellence.

So I haven’t replaced Israel, just shown what The Hebrew Bible says about God using Yeshua The Prince Of God.

Hello Alan
Yes you are right, I Missed that in my response. Sorry. Paul does refer also to the Jews, past, pre Christ. Paul was of course referring to the non remnant that also had become opposition to Gods word via the old prophets.
Basically Paul was stating that not much had changed within the hearts of his kin, because The Messiah had come and had been rejected.

Paul,
You are saying that Paul was talking about Jews pretty much from the beginning of Jewish history up to and ending with his day. Please tell me how you know that he was excluding from his statement the Jews who would live after his time? Because that’s what you just wrote – that he was only referring to pre-Christ Jews up to his own time.

What the NT is saying is that the Jews have always been from the beginning and will always remain killers of god and prophets and enemies of humankind, except for a tiny number who will become like Paul Summers. So you see that the Jews are much worse than any other nation for the simple reason that the Jews of all people should know better. We are “hostile to all people” unless we are like Paul Summers.

Paul,
Do you not see that this is what the NT teaches? You accept it as the truth right?

Secondly, you make a statement which isn’t taught by scripture. I’ve explained the position and showed you the texts to support the teaching. I’m afraid you see things that simply just aren’t there. I can only assume this is only brought on by previous bad teaching and presumption based on error.

The texts simple don’t support your views. It feels like you want the NT to teach antisemitism to support your theory’s??

Paul,
So when Paul wrote “the Jews” are killers of Jesus and the prophets, are displeasing to god, hostile to all men, and have the utmost wrath of god upon them, he didn’t mean “the Jews”, but just the rabbis (the leaders were the rabbis some of whom were priests)?

“God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc. This is a scriptural point of view of Israel. Its very clear.
What also is very clear that from the Hebrew texts God has kept for Himself, For His Name sake, a small remnant of True Jews that does not backslide. This also can be seen from scripture.”

When you wrote “Israel” above, did you just mean the leaders of Israel (i.e. the rabbis)? Or did you mean Israel in general (i.e. the non-True Jews who backslide)?

Finally, does anyone else find the exclusive nature of both Christianity and Islam interesting?

No, I don’t and let me explain why. For generation upon generation, Israel as a nation taught that there was only one deity and that the Torah was G-d’s one path to the full unadulterated truth.

It is in the Bible’s nature to make exclusive claims to truth.

The Pagan world by contrast taught that “all paths lead to the same truth, and it doesn’t matter if someone believes in many deities, it doesn’t matter what the nature of those deities is.

” IE Israel made exclusive claims to the truth, so it stands to reason that the sister faiths would make similar claims.”

Some might say that Christianity says that only Church members get to heaven, but the New Testament says that “those who have not the law do by nature what the law requires and they will be judged by that standard.”

The Orthodox Christian position is that it is the Church’s view that Orthodoxy is the fullest path to salvation, but Christians are not supposed to judge others.

While Judaism teaches that everyone who is just has a share in the world to come, there is no such promise in Jewish sources about everyone being risen from the dead. Much debate exists about that question.

Monotheism as a religious idea is itself an exclusive claim, Israel as a nation basically told the whole world that they were wrong about there being several deities, or a subjective moral code.

Torah sources themselves clearly teach that a gentile who observes the seven laws only because they make sense does not receive a reward. Only if a noachide believes in and follows the laws because he believes they come from G-d, does he merit reward. So, in fact, no, I dont find exclusive claims on the part of Christianity and Islam to be odd, because Judaism makes exclusive claims of its own, has punishments for heretics of its own, etc.

It is one opinion that says a Gentile must keep the universal laws because Hashem commanded so in the Torah in order tp have a share in the world to come. Judaism is not sure if the world to come is the same thing or something different from eternal life. I’m of the belief that a Gentile or Jew who for the most part keeps the 7 laws even if not because Hashem commanded in the Torah, has eternal life. And I am saying this based on big people such as the Meiri.
Judaism IS different as Dina said.

CR,
I relate to your questions very very much. I have all the same questions. I don’t know if the Meiri is a minority on most things. But on this thing I do believe he is a minority. I am not a torah scholar. I can barely learn Talmud even with a teacher. A close friend of mine who became observant about a year before me is a real Torah scholar and he works full time. He’s also much brighter than I am. I feel that with the knowledge and life experience I have gained over the past 25 years I am able to bring something of value to the discussions on this blog. It would be very hard for me to respond to your questions in writing. I think it might be hard for most people to do it in writing. The best way is face to face. Is there any way you can find someone to ask your excellent questions to face to face? If you’re not looking for that I will try to dig deep and tell you on the blog how I personally deal with these questions. But I’m not sure this blog is the right place for it. I’ll let Rabbi B decide.

Romans CH 9,10, 11, are mainly dealing with Christ’s rejection, Gods rejection by them, with Historical parallels, Paul’s is fervently teaching the truth, and Israels coming redemption. He, Paul makes it extremely clear, with no exceptions that the Remnant of Israel will come out of Israel and one day believe in Christ. Securing the covenant’s as per scripture.

Paul isn’t talking about the Church verses Israel, he is actually referring to Israel non believer and Israel believer.

Knowing this, one can understand who Paul is referring to, obviously NOT Jewish believers, but non Jewish believers.
What would the point of rebuke do to a believer seeing that they already believe??

Romans CH 11 v 28 talks about being enemies of the Gospel.
V32. Says them all, everyone. Jew and gentile.

Paul,
Are you saying that when Paul wrote the following he was referring to both Jewish and non-Jewish non-Christians? –

Paul’s Ministry 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 –

“14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Judea that are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from telling the Gentiles how they may be saved. As a result, they continue to heap up their sins to full capacity; the utmost wrath has come upon them.”

You are saying the above is also about Gentiles who are not believers?

CR,
Just as a beginning of an answer – Judaism is grounded in halacha in the physical world. I find the halacha to be just, righteous and wise and with a deep understanding of human nature. There are some gray areas of halacha and in these gray areas the halachic system is broad enough to accommodate very different opinions. I think some of these gray areas are meant to be gray and even if there was a Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin wouldn’t try to take a vote on it. When you live Judaism according to halacha and you see what living a halachic life does in reality for the individual, the family, the community, the nation and the world, the theological questions don’t go away, but they are not as scary and all-consuming because the person is grounded in concrete halacha that really works to improve life tremendously.

I have no doubt that Jews find meaning and insight, and comfort from practical observance, and I see how its concrete nature could make deep theological questions less problematic. In fact, its probably because I was raised Christian and mot Jewish that these issues seem more problematic to me personally.

The halachic life also brings true and deep bonding to the community and each community feels bonded to all of the other communities around the world – even if they have some serious philosophical and political differences.
That’s a great strength you bring to the table. It seems like a deficit but it’s actually an asset. I also wasn’t raised “Jewish”, i.e. with faith and halacha. If I were Hashem, I would have done many things differently. There are many ways the world runs that go against my sensitivities. But alas, I am not Hashem. It’s amazing to me that a person like myself is actually a believing and practicing Torah Jew. But I’ve been on the path for over 25 years now and haven’t gone away from it once, at least not the main parts of shabbat, kashrut, family purity, tzedaka, learning, tefillin, prayer at least once a day.

Paul,
Ok. So Jewish non-believers post-Christ, and the Jewish people in general pre-Christ are prophet killers, god killers and hostile to all men? I just want to make sure you agree this is what Paul is saying in the NT.

Hi Alan
Ok. So Jewish non-believers post-Christ, and the Jewish people in general pre-Christ are prophet killers, god killers and hostile to all men? I just want to make sure you agree this is what Paul is saying in the NT.

Well we’ve got the right periods of time right, but the message isn’t directed towards ALL Jews. Its directed primarily at the Jewish leaders. The men in positions of power and influence within the Jewish law, temple service etc. It is these individuals that Jesus had the most friction with. If you read the Gospel accounts the common everyday Jewish person were looking up to the leaders for guidance. Its these leaders who swung the minds of the people against Jesus.
You will see the account in Mathew CH 23.

If you read Acts, Peter, Paul, John are having the same issues with the Jewish leaders not Jews in general.

Read Romans, and see how much love and dedication Paul has for His own brethren the Jew.

If you want to translate “Jews” as “Judean Leaders” it really does not work. If you want to do that, you have to pick and choose which passage should use “Judean Leader” and which one should use “Jews” on your own assumption.

Look at John 6:
Passover, the Jewish feast, was near.
4 Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near.
———————-
Some of the Judeans[f] started to grumble about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” Tree of life

The Jews then complained about Him
————————-
Then the Jews began arguing with one another
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

This is all the same Greek word “Jews”. Now of course, they translated “Jews” on verse 4. Why do you think that they translate “Judean” on verse 41? Because there was no leaders in the conversation, and could it have been all the Jews complaining? No way, they had to look not anti-Semite! The Judean (the bad guys in this case) are the scape goat of the Tree of life translation. Finally, they translate Jew again, because if they argued, then some most have think that good jews were amongst them. Judean could not possibly be good, they are the bad guys.

I believe that Hashem created the world from nothing and without His will to constantly recreate the world from nothing the world would revert to nothing. I believe He runs the world and that nothing that happens in the world happens without His consent. I believe Hashem has planted within each human being an “image of G-d”.

What this “image of G-d” means is a whole other discussion, but one of its main characteristics is freewill – that it is in our hands to choose between good and evil according to the natural moral compass He implanted in us (which usually starts to comes to maturity in the early teenage years) and according to the moral education we receive from our human teachers (parents, teachers, society).

Hashem gives the human being the freewill to commit atrocities. And Hashem has the freewill to either prevent the atrocity from being carried out or to allow it to happen. What I am getting at is this: just as Hashem is the Author of the 5 Books of Moses and the Source of the prophecies in the Prophets and Writings, so is He the Author and Editor of how the physical world runs – all of the wars, all of the atrocities, all of the natural disasters, all of the diseases, all of the accidents, how animals and insects eat and sometimes torture other animals and insects – Hashem is the Author and Editor of everything.

Therefore, just as I can be disturbed by some of the events in Tanakh, I can also be disturbed by events in the physical world. Things in the world go against my sensibilities no less than some things in Tanakh do. I don’t have to reject Hashem just because of things I don’t like in Tanakh. I can reject Him for things in the world that I don’t like because as I said before, I believe Hashem is the Author and Editor of the world just as He is the Author and Editor of Tanakh.

I could choose this nihilistic path and reject Hashem for anything in the world and in Tanakh that I don’t like. But I am not choosing this path. I don’t understand how He runs His world. I don’t understand how He wrote and edited His Tanakh.

But I believe Judaism is different from all of the other choices I have seen in the world. What Hashem asks of me is not always light and easy. But I thank Him for giving me a path to a well-rounded life of values, morals, integrity, dignity, respect and teshuva IN THIS WORLD.

And my fellow Jews throughout history, especially the giants in Torah and morals, have also struggled with the same things and they have put their struggles and analyses in writing for us. And despite their difficult questions remaining unresolved, these moral giants continued to lead lives of breathtaking integrity, dignity and teshuva.

What happens in the World to Come, I don’t know. But the dignity, nobility and integrity that He has given me in this world through His Torah makes me want to choose Him.

The articles I showed you delve into it more deeply than this one page article and I thought they provided a more satisfying response than this one page article. And the articles I sent you were only 2 relatively short articles on David and Batsheva, 1 article on “the poor man’s lamb” and 1 article on David’s “punishment and repentance”. So it’s really not such a big squeeze. However, the audio classes are more involved and also devote a lot of time to explaining a lot of fundamentals of Judaism that are necessary to understanding the episode.

Most and maybe all stories in Tanakh can be explained on a simple level as well as on deeper and deeper levels. The reason I didn’t initially send you the 1 page article from ou.org is because I didn’t think it would be satisfying to you. I thought the articles on etzion.or.il would have been more of what you were looking for.

Alan
I just read most of the article you posted and it seems some are trying to say that Dovid did not commit a sin with Batsheva. But the fact that Uriyah “did” come back from war after Batsheva was pregnant with Dovids child didn’t that make it a sin? Had Dovid never sent for Uriyah and he was killed in war and never came back then it would not have been a sin I could understand.

“I just read most of the article you posted and it seems some are trying to say that Dovid did not commit a sin with Batsheva.”
Everyone says he sinned, including the verses in Tanakh. There is only one sage who says he didn’t sin and that was a descendant of David and the most he could have meant was that David did not technically commit the sin of adultery. But everyone agrees he committed sins. Most do not feel he committed the sin of adultery technically. There are very good proofs for this in the verses themselves.

“But the fact that Uriyah “did” come back from war after Batsheva was pregnant with Dovids child didn’t that make it a sin?”
It was a sin but most likely not technically adultery because she was still not married to Uriyah when he came back.

“Had Dovid never sent for Uriyah and he was killed in war and never came back then it would not have been a sin I could understand.”
It definitely would not have been the technical sin of adultery but it still most likely would have been a sin.

I think you would like reading the articles I posted from etzion.org.il .
I find them much more satisfying than the 1 page article.

Was the divorce a conditional divorce or an unconditional divorce? I don’t think we know for sure anymore.

What was a conditional divorce? There could be a few different versions:

IF HE DOESN’T RETURN –
1. They were divorced retroactively (from the time he handed her the divorce document she has been a divorced lady).
2. They were not divorced retroactively (she doesn’t become a divorced lady until it is clear he is not returning).

IF HE DOES RETURN –
1. They were divorced retroactively but there is no need to remarry.
2. They were divorced retroactively and they must remarry.
3. They were not divorced retroactively and there is no need to remarry.

The Jewish people stopped doing this long before the mishnah was written so we don’t remember exactly how it was done anymore. Or it could have been done in more than one way but we don’t know which way Uriyah did it. And the truth is – we are not even sure that he did it at all.

I have to say that there’s not much logic in the interpretation of the “Soldier Gett” as a final document that abolishes ongoing marriage. In that case, soldier who comes back from the war and remarry same woman would violate Torah. So it’s clear that Batsheva committed adultery. As per David, he also committed adultery because he slept with a woman who was not yet his own wife, and was not immediately intending on marrying her.

Besides, the most logical explanation of the whole episode is that David was hoping that Uriyah will go and sleep with his wife and they will think that the baby is actually Uriyah’s, and everyone will move on.
That didn’t work, so David piled up sin upon sin by killing Uriyah.
In my opinion the moral of the story is that no matter how grave the sin is, there is a room for repentance, with some consequences as well (instead of living calm life David had to deal with Absalom’s betrayal, and death). The important fact is that David did not sin afterwards, hence fulfilling requirements from the Ezekiel 18:21-22.

With all this in mind, the “David apologists” are really doing disservice to Tanakh in my opinion.

Hi Alan, certainly:
My understanding of Deuteronomy 24:4 which states “her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.”
Although the situation described in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not exactly same as Uriyah’s, it is clear that he could not take back Batsheva after she slept with David.
Furthermore, this can be expanded for anyone who goes to war, gives a Gett to his wife and his wife has relationship with another man in the meantime.
In other words, God’s law makes it essentially impossible to “take a break” during marriage. No matter what the reason is.
So, the Gett is only symbolic and in my mind serves a purpose in cases when you have soldiers “missing in action”, so that a wife is not obliged to wait for an unreasonable long period of time for her husband to come back, possibly risking losing fertility in a process.

Nikola,
Thanks for answering. I agree with you about the purpose of the war gett (divorce). I will have to do some research but I think that in order for the first husband to be forbidden to remarry his ex-wife, she would have had to be legally married to another man after she divorced her first husband. I don’t think David married Batsheva until after Uriyah died; I don’t think there was an marriage ceremony. I will need to look this halacha up and get back to you.

I mean when David was first intimate with Batsheva, she was not his legal wife. There was no marriage. I don’t know this for sure. It’s just an educated guess. I will get back to you in the next few days.

Please let me know what you think. Again, I agree with you about the purpose of the war gett and that it is not a license for the woman to marry another man nor to be promiscuous while her husband is at war. I’m just saying according to halacha, if David did not marry her while Uriyah was fighting (and I don’t think he did), then Uriyah would have been allowed to rejoin his wife provided, of course, that she was not legally married when she was with David.

Hi Alan,
maybe we are getting tangled into too much details. 🙂
It is my understanding that “war gett” was a social construct and societal invention. There is no basis in Torah of giving gett at will, it was designed for specific cases, and one of them is not going to war.
In that sense Deuteronomy 22:22 strictly prohibits sleeping with another man’s wife. And I truly believe that this pertains to wives of soldiers that are temporarily in war as well (even if this symbolic gett is in their hand). However, in situation where the “war get” becomes social norm, we can argue that David’s sin is somewhat diminished. But only up to a point.
I’m sure David is for all of us a beloved person, one of the favorite people from Tanakh. His greatest achievement was being able to repent and get away from wickedness after committing such a horrible sin (and he was blessed with position from which I’m sure he had many temptations every day).
I have to say that one of my biggest disappointments (as if I’m sinless) while reading Tanakh was the whole episode with Batsheva. But it only affirms what is said in Ezekiel 18:21-22, and gives us hope and guidance to repent and be better.
One last point – it is not accidental that Batsheva was taking a bath at the exact time when David was walking on the roof. This was all part of God’s test, and eventually, after starting troubles, David passed it with flying colors. So if we can not be as perfect as Job, at least we can aspire to be “imperfect” as David.
As Solomon said about righteous, in Proverbs 24:16: “For though he falls seven times, he will get up again; it’s the wicked who fail under stress.”

Nikola,
Here is the passage again from the Torah about the prohibition of remarrying one’s divorcee –

Deuteronomy 24 –
1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, 2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife, 3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The link I posted explains these verses according to the explanation we received from Moses, i.e. her first husband may not take her back only in the case where she was halachically married to another man in the interim and then this second husband gave her a divorce. And this is exactly what the verses say. So it is not at all far-fetched and I think it’s reasonable that David was not with a halachically married woman when Uriyah was fighting and that she was still permitted to Uriyah when he came back. And even though there was no technical sin of adultery, there were other very serious sins as we see from Nathan the prophet’s words to David and from David’s punishment.

I think everything else you wrote is right on the mark and according to what I have learned.

I really didn’t think I was going to get into this because I told CR that we shouldn’t. If we are told to stop I will stop.

Alan and Nikola The main message of the David and Batsheva story is repentance as Nikola so clearly pointed out. This that the rabbis mitigate the crime is not the main message of the story at all. The rabbis had their reasons and it is not so simple to explain in one paragraph. One detail that you (Alan) seem to have missed is that the rabbis believed that in Uriah’s case he was not going to take his wife back anyway – in his case the get was serious. David demonstrated that by sending Uriah home and getting him to refuse publicly. Another detail relates to the ongoing undercurrent of conflict with Joab – but all of these are only relevant to someone who sees these ideas in the text by themselves.

Rabbi B,
I agree with you and Nikola that the whole purpose of this story was to teach about teshuva – psalm 51 is called the psalm of teshuva.
I was aware that according to some opinions Uriyah was not interested in Batsheva – I wrote so here ( https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/05/differences-a-letter-from-eleazar/#comment-36931 ) –
And if Uriah was interested in his wife he would have listened to King David’s command to him to rejoin Batsheva as husband and wife but he made an excuse and refused to rejoin her.

Hi Alan,
no need to forcefully stop, I think we reached point of essential agreement, as yourphariseefriend pointed out. Let’s leave aside the less important details.
In the sea of more heated and sometimes less meaningful debates, I found this to be refreshing take on an inspiring story from Tanakh with “happy ending”. 🙂
Not that there are non-inspiring stories in Tanakh!

Connie, I was talking about excluding people and you are talking about excluding views; do you see the difference? If you believe you are right about something, then by implication you believe that anyone who disagrees is wrong. But there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and with writing off their humanity.

Do you think all Christians right off the humanity of others? Do you not think they have commentaries that explains things in their books that sound awful just as Judaism has?

When I was a Christian, I never wrote off anyones humamity, because the whole premise of my former faith was saving all of humanity.

The premise that everyone dies because of sins does not require the Christian Bible to believe in.

All of himanity already dies, good or evil, and even the most righteous people die because G-d decides such.

G-d himself has flooded the whole earth man woman and child, only to have sin reemerge after a short while, after such a bloody episode.

Wicked people (or what the Bible deems as wicked people) are written off in Tanakh too, or cut off as it says.

How much killing off of whole nations, or populations is openly discussed in the Christian text?

I wasnt introduced to the idea that G-d can kill literally everyone good or evil based on his choice by the Christian’s source text.

The Tanakh showed me the Israelite 1st born killed, Egypt’s 1st born killed in retaliation (after hardening Pharoah’s heart, in part, made sure the people wouldnt leave Egypt yet.)

Tanakh showed the conquest of Canaan (what manifest destiny was based on btw.)

If anything, the Christian texts taken by themselves provide a very abstract notion of eternal suffering with fire for WICKED CHRISTIANS and also for non believers, but the Christian Bible openly says that people are only judged for what they know.

As I mentioned, many orthodox Christian sources actually talk about “hell fire” as being what happens when a person who doesnt want to be with G-d is with him.

I should have been more clear and not used the expression “write off the humanity.”

Here we go again, then:

Connie, I was talking about excluding people and you are talking about excluding views; do you see the difference? If you believe you are right about something, then by implication you believe that anyone who disagrees is wrong. But there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and with sending them to hell for their views.

Christians are comfortable with sending billions of people to hell simply for not accepting a particular belief. Muslims as well. Jews refuse to do that, and herein lies the difference.

You are right, there are fundamental differences of interpretation. Herein is the point I’m making Dina. Judaism can 100% disagree with eternal hell for sinners (a fact Im glad Judaism disagrees with,) but you have Jewish sources now and in the past that accomidate the presence of that belief.

Hell is abstract in Christian theology, as it is in Jewish theology. The Church itself teaches many different things. The Church even has purgatory and the merit of the saints because even Christians dislike their own notion of hell and want to escape the notion. Christians couldnt be more uncomfortable with hell.

Here is a story for you.

One of my relatives was an atheist and he passed (without my sharing the gospel.) I cried my eyes out thinking (as a matter of protestant belief) that he was simply going to hell.

It wasnt until I later studied Christian eastern.orthodoxy and Catholicism, that I realized I hadnt even understood the breadth of different perspectives on salvation/hell present within my own Christian tradition.

Turns out that for Catholics and Orthodox a person’s deeds matter when it comes to their fate.

Its Not as simple as do you or dont accept Christianity.

IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE Christians are comfortable with hell, you dont understand them as well as you think.

You once told me that my readings of Christian scripture (which you thought were nice and could have saved lives in the past if they had been heeded) were irrelevant because such readings were mine alone.

As I told Alan, the problem is that nobody can control anyones interpretation, even when they claim authority to do so.

I have read Jewish sources that say scary horrid things will happen to sinners, and that there are no guarantees of reward for non Jews. Fire and brinstone rabbis exist within your tradition too. There are sources on the level with Christian hell, no less scary.

Jews in Jesus’ time in fact were unsure of the fate of other equally observant Jews from other sects. It was a messed up time.

So, while I agree with you that Christian notions of hell, and the exclusion of people are awful, or that salvation only for the chosen Christian is awful, I cant say that those ideas are unknown to Judaism, even though they are unpopular and minority views.

Also, Christians themselves are held captive by these notions, and they dont like them any more than you do.

They have to believe in it because they believe their religion is true, even though I assure you, Christians dont like the doctrine either.

Penn Gilette once said that he hated the Christian hell, and hated the exclusion of others, but he noted that Christians thhemselves preached at him BECAUSE THEY WANT NOBODY TO GO THERE.

Its not their fault they believe their claims are real.

I grew up in a mindset of fear of demons, Satan, and hell. It wasnt my fault I believed in such things, and I didnt want anyone to go to hell.

As a Christian I did believe (in spite of hell) in G-d’s justice. I believed G-d was a just judge.

Penn Gilette said, “If someone really believes hell is real, isnt it commendable in a round about way that they dont want you to go there?”

They are victims of their faith’s truth claims.

You are upset that Christians exclude others from their heaven, but do you honestly want to be included in that version of the world to come?

I understand being upset at Christian horrors like pogroms, genocide, etc. but the scary thing is their book doesnt encourage such things.

They had to look to episodes like Elijah and the false prophets to engage in “faith tests” or disputations in the real world.

Something to always keep in mind about Christian hell, is that in Christian sources and tradition, hell is 1st for the wicked Christian.

Its fortunate that Judaism doesnt take all of its folklore seriously. Unfortunately, one sect of Jews decided to take sone of that minority folklore more literally, and they spread it worldwide.

CR,
The truth is there are widely accepted rabbinic writings that speak about the exceedingly painful sufferings in purgatory. I think these ideas didnt originate in Judaism though. I think they predate the Jewish people if I’m remembering correctly. Thank God that most Jews throughout history have not been preoccupied with it and haven’t used this as an essential reason to serve God nor as a fundamental principal of faith.

CR,
What does Judaism say about the eternal fate of Jews who are not loyal to the most basic requirements of being a Jew? And what does it say about the eternal fate of non-Jews who are not loyal to the most basic requirements of being a human being?

The first thing we have to accept before we answer these questions is that ONLY HASHEM KNOWS. Human beings do not know and shouldn’t claim to know. Hashem takes into account everything about the person. It’s not cut and dry. Oh, you didn’t keep shabbos? No olam habah for you. Oh, you pray to Jesus? Oh, no olam habah for you. This is a gray area of halacha and one of the reasons it’s gray is because we’re dealing with real life which is extremely complicated and only Hashem has all of the information about a person to pass judgement. This is something a human being cannot judge. So even though the Torah says that the punishment for a Jew who desecrates shabbat on purpose is spiritual excision (with 2 witnesses giving him warning and letting him know the punishment, there is capital punishment if the sinner continues at that moment of warning – and only when there is a Sanhedrin and when all Jews keep shabbat), we can’t know today who is “cut off” and who is not. There are many extenuating reasons today and throughout much of Jewish history. The same thing applies to non-Jews. The plain black and white laws that you might see in a code of Jewish law cannot so readily be applied to all time periods, especially not when it comes to eternal reward and punishments which is something human beings cannot judge. Deuteronomy 32:4 – “The Rock, His work is wholesome; for all His ways are justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and straight is He.” In my mind, there is no way that Hashem will destroy a person eternally who is basically trying to be decent, even if he/she sometimes falls and makes mistakes. If they are trying to be decent, I don’t from Judaism that we must say that Hashem will destroy their souls because they didn’t accept the Torah upon themselves. Of course, a person might lose out on a lot if they don’t try as hard as they could be trying. I also believe that the Torah helps a person achieve the highest level of growth that is humanly possible – well-rounded growth. And this doesn’t mean that a person who doesn’t accept the Torah can’t grow spiritually. To say so is pure nonsense and not according to what we see in reality.

Hi Alan
We seem to be going round and round in a perpetual circle of debate which either one of us is not reading what one has been shown, or one of us isn’t explaining a very basic subject very well??

I honesty don’t think I can explain this subject anymore. I’m more than sure in my heart that I’ve given all I can on the subject.
In my opinion, for what’s its worth, I think what ever is explained and proven from the texts, you will find some how to disagree.
You will either see the truth or reject it.

Thanks again Alan for the time spent, but I’m done here on this subject.

I’m just glad that Paul Summers doesn’t consider me to be a god-killer, prophet-killer, displeasing to god, hostile to all men, with the utmost wrath of god upon me. Because even though I do not accept Jesus, I am not a rabbi. I guess Rabbi B is not so lucky.

I just remembered that I asked you the following question and I’m still waiting for an answer –

How is it possible that we see non-Christians (such as Jews) serving God according to your definition of serving God when you claim that this is impossible? How can you say it’s impossible when we see it happening?

What you see, is just that, you see it. However The God of Israel see’s it differently. He see’s it as just works of men with no faith.
As stated on occasions previously you need to read scripture from whats written, not what you want it to say. An atheist can do good works, but that doesn’t mean that person is serving God.

I’m as good as an atheist?
The born-again Christian who inspired me to find this blog told me that he and I serve the same God, the God of Israel. Now you’re telling me I don’t serve the God of Israel?

Alan, 99% of Christian would say that you are unsave and deserving of hell. The NT says that many times. “Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him.”

Can you possibly serve G-d and still deserve His wrath? I don’t think so, so Paul prefers to think that you serve another god. When we come to it, who has a better chance of serving G-d? The one that follows the Tanach, or those who follow Jesus?

RT,
You believe me that my born-again Christian friend used to love telling me that he and I both serve the God of Israel?
But Paul Summers who’s also a born-again Christian thinks I serve an alien god or that I’m equivalent to an atheist?

Alan, Paul is right as per NT, you and I are doomed to hell. Your friend might say/think that you serve the same G-d as him, but did you ever ask him if he thinks you will finish in hell? That might not be the same answer. I am not saying he is dishonest, but if I have a friend, he might have felt bad to tell you that. If not, his view might not be orthodox, and most Christians would consider your friend unsaved by denying the Super-Power of the blood of the Lamb!

Paul,
I asked you what service of God consists of and you told me that it’s in 1 Timothy 14 (I think). All of those works there are exactly what I am trying to do with my life. Timothy doesn’t say “serve Jesus” he says “serve God”. When I pray, I pray to the God of Israel. When I control my urges I do it with the God of Israel in mind. When I do kindness I do it with the God of Israel in mind. Show me where Timothy 14 says if you don’t serve Jesus you don’t serve the God of Israel.

Alan, Read a real Tanakh, start at Geneis and finish at 2 Chronicle. I would suggest for you to use the Stone Tanach… but the JBS can be fine as well. Once you done that and you realize Jesus was nowhere to be found, wonder where that new god-man comes from.

Can God come down and take his Spirit and put it on other people?Numbers 11:25
or
Does Gods Spirit hover over the Water? Genesis 1:2
Spirit + God.
And Yet, Christians Claim that Jesus is his WORD.
Spirit+God+Word=1 God

God’s Word Created the World.

Unless Gods Spirit is less than God himself, or possibly his Word fails.

And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
God uses Flesh(Prophets) to speak his Word.

“Truly I say to you, in the renewed world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of his glory, you (disciples) also will be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30)”

jesus seems to be implying that judas is truly going to get rewarded . it is almost like a guarantee indicating that the author of matthew took oral tradition in which jesus did not know of being betrayed by judas.

compare to john
13.12-21
in the above verses from the synoptics there is no wording like
” i am not speaking of you all; i know WHOM i have CHOSEN ….”

Alan wrote “It’s amazing to me that a person like myself is actually a believing and practicing Torah Jew. But I’ve been on the path for over 25 years now and haven’t gone away from it once, at least not the main parts of shabbat, kashrut, family purity, tzedaka, learning, tefillin, prayer at least once a day.”

Having spoken to Alan personally, he is almost what one could call “a born-again Jew”. At the risk of sounding weird, if he were a Christian most of my Christian friends would refer to him as “very Christlike”.

Middle of the road is best. Regular person who can get along with all kinds of people is best. Thanks to my son I am learning to appreciate why Hashem created ice hockey in the world. My son is a big strong ice hockey player, not like his dad. They didn’t tell me I could get a son so different from me when I went to “baal teshuva” yeshiva. So I have to learn how to relate to and really care about what’s important to him. We all bring different assets to the table.

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27“I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes.

Eliyahu hasn’t come yet. Moshiach hasn’t come yet. Let’s do what Deuteronomy 30 says and turn back to Hashem and listen to His voice according to everything He commanded Moses and then Moshiach will come.

Alan:
You didn’t dispute anything I said.
God has come.
The Messiah has come.
Many have already Turned back by Yeshua’s blood.
His Righteousness, not mine.
The Messiah will Return to gather his Flock.
The Goats will receive Gods Wine.

Sister Dina. Thank you for the enlightening argument again. However i still don’t see that Deuteronomy 18 compliments the acts of Pharisees and Saducees in Mt.12:38
In Deut.18, where did God command His people to ask for a sign? Didn’ t he command simply to discern?

It seems to me that Moses sometimes got angry at the people’s asking for divine miracle.

If you read carefully Mt.12:40
The Jonah’ s sign Yeshua would show did not include “resurrection,” only “death.”

Mt. 26:57 & 27:62 etc, proves that Many religious leaders like Pharisees, Saducees, priests and elders witnessed and knew upon the death of Yshua;

Compare Gideon with Ahaz (Isaiah 7). In the Hebrew Bible, it is clear that those who are righteous ask signs and those who are not refrain from it. The G-d of the Bible never refused signs and never got angry when people asked for it.

Take the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink.”

Bible819,
Faithfulness to G-d is one part of the prophet test. Here’s the rest –

Deuteronomy 13 –

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams–and he give thee a sign or a wonder, 3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee–saying: ‘Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them’; 4 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 5 After the LORD your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave. 6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

Deuteronomy 18 –

20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Jeremiah 28 –

7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people: 8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. 9 The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

Alan:
Luke 12
Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

22 Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. 23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.

Bible819,
Whenever that day comes, we will once again keep all of his commandments just as the verse you brought says. There are several other verses that also show that after the final redemption, we will all be doing the commandments.

Bible819,
Some of that sounds great. You fulfill every command? Do you pray to Jesus? Do you keep shabbos according to halacha we received from Moses? I don’t even know if you’re Jewish. If you’re not Jewish that don’t worry about shabbos.

RT. You are right and i was wrong. There are many men of God who asked for a sign and God never refused signs. He is God of signs and wonders in the history of Israel!
God showed the signs even during the Korean war when the Korean Christians asked for mercy from the God of Israel. It seems to me that the reason why Yeshua rebuked the Pharisee’s asking of sign is their intention and attitude.

Mark 8:11 “And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.”

If you read carefully Mt.12:40
The Jonah’ s sign Yeshua would show did not include “resurrection,” only “death.”

Matt 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

The mention of three days implies an end to his being in the earth, and was a direct comparison to Jonah’s three days. ” For as”, means “in the same way” , which in context means “for the same amount of time”. Were it just about “dying” and not resurrecting, then the amount of days would be completely irrelevant as would be any reference to Jonah. But then that is your goal, right? To make the words “sign” and “three days and three nights” irrelevant because it has been proven that this “sign” was never given to the people it was promised to.

Your interpretation is entirely your own and no other Christian apologist in almost 2000 years has dared make any such similar comment on this text. Every other Christian responds to this text by saying the following:

“In Jewish time reckoning, any part of a day counted as a whole day. Thus, one hour before sunset counts as an entire day and one hour after sunset counts as an entire day. Therefore part of Friday= day 1, all of Saturday= day 2, part pf Sunday= day 3, prophecy fulfilled.”

Now you and I, as well as every Jew and Noachide here, knows that this Christian explanation of time reckoning is a deceptive lie. Even of we grant the “any part of a day equals a whole”, Jesus said “three days AND three nights”, not “three days”. In other words, three day times and three night times, not three calendar days, as the Christian apologist deceptively tries to pull off. Beyond that, the Christian ignores the fact that Jesus never showed himself as “the sign” he promised. Because you know this, you then try to use a different explanation, that Jesus was not speaking of resurrection, but only of dying. This, of course, is no better than the standard Christian explanation, and in fact ignores the context of the statement by Jesus.

Brother Eleazar, “3 days and 3nights in the heart of the earth or in the belly of fish.” Doesn’t it simply mean DEATH only? Scripture is so simple and clear, right?

NOw, as you questioned, i also was doubtful of Yeshua’s being buried in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. He died and buried. But how come three days and nights? His death continues on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday that make up 3 day times. But Friday night (in a way of western counting), saturday night, then Sunday morning! We need one more night of death!

I want to encourage you to see that the Gospel of Matthew is the only gospel which records that the religious leaders like Pharisees and priests witnessed and knew the death of Yeshua! (Mt 27:62-63 “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again “) AND at the same time, ONLY THIS GOSPEL records the death of JUDAH on Thursday night before the dawn of Friday sun arose (Matthew 27:1-5)

My brother, i think the Gospel of Matthew tells us something. The death of Yeshua is viewed as the death of the covenant people – Judah. Yehuda. Jewish people. Just like Isaish 53 can be viewed as the suffering servant of nation Israel as Jewish people interpret and as the Jewish Messiah as Christians interpret. Both Yeshua and Israel was used as the lamb of God, slaughtered for the redemption of the world.
As Yeshua was destroyed on the cross, the Temple was destroyed on C.E.70.
As Yeshua resurrected on the third day, the temple will resurrect on the beginning of the third millenium.

I guess that’s why Yeshua mentioned His sign will be 3 nights, including his own disciple- Judah’s death on thursday night. His sign shows the destiny of the covenant people. I hope this will help.

Hello YPF
Of course Israels national salvation is the climax of Gods promises. Those verses from Isaiah are surely detailing Israels redemption by God, which of course is still future.
Aren’t those texts to do with salvation post exile via Messiah. You seem to have quoted them in the present tense?
Israel has still got go through the times of Jacobs trouble before those Isaiah passages come into fruition?

Paul Summers, you were saying to Alan that he serves G-d via works of men, and therefore not at all.

Which works of men?

keeping the Sabbath day holy? That’s a textual command

Kosher? That’s also textual

Tefillin and TzitTzit ( derived from the text, which Jesus kept also, but which is not directly in the written text?)

Paul Summers Said: “What you see, is just that, you see it. However The God of Israel see’s it differently.”

Paul Summers, Something you should know is that you cannot read G-d’s mind.

I have a friend who is a street preacher, and this is one of our biggest pet peeves. You do not know the heart or mind of the G-d of Israel any better than a Jewish person knows it.

By telling this man that he does not serve G-d, you prove the apostle Paul’s point about the wrongs of self justification.

You believe you are justified and blameless because you are a follower of Jesus, and Alan isn’t because he does not follow Jesus.

You are placing yourself in the seat of G-d, the epitome of the wrongdoing that the Apostle Paul spoke about.

The idea that you could say such a thing to Alan shows that you must not understand Paul of Tarsus’ whole point about works of the law, and why they can be a source of sin.

Have you ever noticed that the message Paul gives to Jews about works of the law, he also warns Jewish and gentile Christians about in regards to works of the gospel? IE not to eat of the Eucharist unworthily for example?

He says the doer of the work is the one who is justified and not the hearer (Romans 2:13)

Observing the commandments of G-d as Jews do (including kosher, shabbat, etc.) is not wicked in any sense, nor is it an attempt at self justification before G-d as you believe. Following those commands are not works of men.

Look at Paul of Tarsus himself so you can see the prime example of what Paul of Tarsus actually meant by problems of works of the law.

Paul (according to his own testimony) sought to make trouble for and maybe even kill the students of Jesus by handing them over to Rome. IE Paul, (though he was also a Jew) was self righteous in the eyes of the Torah.

The man sought to do harm to his own fellow observant Jewish people because he thought his view of the Torah was the only valid one.

That is what it means to be under the curse of the law, and being justified by works according to Paul.

When a Sadducee would seek to harm a Pharisee, or a Samaritan, would seek to harm a Jew, that is works of the law.

what you had in that situation was groups of people who were all keeping the Torah’s commands in accordance with their own conscience, but trying to harm each other at the same time, and thereby they were undermining the entire goal of the Torah in the 1st place.

Christians today come to Jews and say “hey, why not abandon Kosher?”

“Hey, why try and keep Shabbat? Its too hard, and you should stop and accept Jesus!”

All you do when you accuse a Jew of cleaving to works is cement in their minds the idea that Jesus was wicked lawbreaker and wanted to drive Jews from the commandments.

IT IS TORAH THAT FORCES A JEW TO BE OBSERVANT OF TORAH COMMANDS IN ALL GENERATIONS AND WHERE TORAH IS CALLED THE COVENANT OF LOVE. (Deuteronomy 7:9)

CR,
This was really great. I thank you very much for it. And thanks for reminding me of that beautiful verse in Deuteronomy 7 and your putting it in the words Covenant of Love – keeping the commandments is a covenant of love. I never heard the verse put that way before but I think it is an excellent and true reading even if not verbatim.

The point that Paul is making is exactly what Alan and yourself are doing. He is saying that outwardly observation of the Law Does NOT bring about justification. He, Paul is saying the Law is nil and void now through the death of Christ. The Law in itself is Holy, Just, perfect as it is Gods Holy standard, but man can never achieve its rightful standards.
The Law was never given to obtain salvation.

The point about the bread and wine is simply about the condition of ones spiritual life, and one should observe their life as a believer before taking it. Its about issues of repentance and life style, bringing a closer relationship towards God, not just doing outwardly observations that mean nothing.

You say that keeping the covenants is love. Does that mean if you don’t keep the covenant’s there is no love?

I wrote: “and to love mercy”. But I don’t feel this is the best translation.
The more precise translation is “and to love kindness”. It’s close but I think the word kindness expresses an active DOING more than the word mercy does.
In Hebrew mercy is rahamim while kindness is hesed and this verse says “to love hesed”.

Alan, I think Paul is saying that without the salvation of Jesus, you may do all the service outwardly, but you are a like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In other words, Paul think that your outside appears to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. As I said, you cannot do it for the right motive. It is especially true because he believe in the original sin, and has a Calvinist approach of the new testament. You are not a sinner because you sin, you sin, because you are born a sinner. Or as John said, you do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

That’s what he thinks, you and I cannot see the truth about Jesus, because we belong to Satan and are bond to be liars and murderers. The only reason why we don’t go about killing everybody is because it brings us less joy (imprisonment and other personal gains) not to do it. The only thing we do is selfish and there is nothing we don’t do that is not selfish and hell deserving. Even charity that we do is disgusting in the inmost part for god Jesus as our motives are not to bring glory to the man-god.

Google Calvinism and tulip and you will find the worst Christian doctrine ever…

RT,
If this is what he thinks, and I suspect you’re right on the mark, than he is living in hell NOW in this world. This is true hell to live with these thoughts. To look at everyone on the planet as a messenger of the devil or to at least suspect them of this, dehumanizes all mankind, we’re worse than animals. And to be trapped in the believe that the torture and murder of another human being is the only thing that makes us human again, is truly hell on earth.

My Stone Tanakh does not say anywhere that God makes babies be born as messengers of the Satan, nor does it say that one must believe that the heinous murder of another person is what makes one Man. It doesn’t say that a person or god can be murdered for the purpose of making devil-people into Image-of-God-people. I just don’t see any of this in my Stone Tanakh. I haven’t read all of the JPS, maybe it’s in there?

They must believe or fear that God has given them over into the hands of the Satan; that Satan is an independent god and can do to people whatever he wants. It sounds like they literally believe in 2 gods.

Hi Alan
Those verses from Micah’s book are of course about service. God is dealing with Israel’s sins and there wrong attitude towards many issues He has with them. In context, as before, its not about outwardly acts but getting one’s heart right with the right motives. The basic principles were being forgotten. This is the verse meaning.
But works by itself cannot justify anyone to God.

Yes Alan, Christianity is a dualistic religion with two gods. Because you do not believe in Jesus, you are following the lesser god Satan. You are part of his army as per what Paul is saying and he is blinding you of the truth of the Gospel. Only Jesus/god can make you see that truth and you are unable to chose god, he has to choose you first before you accept him. You are not saved because you accept Jesus, you accept Jesus, because god saved you. You are part of the Devil’s army (and me too) and will finish in hell…

I would not call the Christian god Hashem. The Christian god is stronger and satan must obey when asked to. The Christian god wins and throw Satan and all his followers (you and me) in the lake of fire. All evil (Satan, you and me) will be there forever.

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Yes sure, you can see heaven up above and all Jesus’ follower having a party, while you having “fun” down there. They also can look at you and laugh all together for being such a Jesus denier. ( I am not kidding!)

I don’t say the covenant of Moses is G-d’s covenant of love. The Bible in Deuteronomy and in the Psalms says this.

When Jesus 1st preached, the only book he had was the Torah of Moses.

Ask yourself why the law can’t justify someone in Paul’s view.

Its Because humans get self righteous. When they get self righteous, they don’t and cant fulfill the intent of the law, so all it does is judge.

Adam was being self righteous when he ate from the tree.

You telling Alan, (a man you do not know,) that he can’t serve G-d scripturally because he is an orthodox Jew is the height of hubris. It proves that Christians like you have the same exact problem as you claim Jews have because they observe Torah.

Believing in Jesus has not ended Christian self righteousness, or ended Christian sin.

The Bible is the book that tells Jews to practice the covenant of Moses forever.

If you think that the early students of Jesus abandoned practical observance, you need to read your own book more carefully.

Paul the apostle took a vow (and paid for others) so that people wouldn’t think he was against Moses, and you come here and say that it is impossible to observe the commandments.

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” IE YOU DO NOT NEED SOMEONE TO ASCEND TO HEAVEN SO YOU CAN KEEP THE TORAH!!!!

Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” IE NOBODY NEEDS TO WALK ON WATER SO YOU CAN OBSERVE IT!!

No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Paul if eating the bread and wine unworthily was meant only as a spiritual warning, why does Paul of Tarsus CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY say that if you eat unworthily, you eat and drink damnation on yourself?

It seems to me that you must be a protestant. The Churches for centuries have prevented even neophytes from taking the Eucharist, because a person has to be living a lifestyle worthy of Jesus.

You probably haven’t even read any of my posts on this blog. I am not saying a person is justified if they happen to be Jewish, and neither are Jews claiming any such thing.

Hello RT
Woh! Some comments there, such passion you have, I’m no expert but those comments are verging on religious hatred!!
Anyway…

I was Wondering if you could help me out on a few points ref the Law of Moses and the Hebrew tanach?

1. Does the Law of Moses still stand today, if so, are you a Law keeper?
2. If the Law still stands today, as per scripture, are you or Jews aloud to fulfill some, but not adhere to others bits, the commands that are difficult to follow?

3. Can you find me a text in the NT when Jesus or his disciples went on a national campaign and invaded a country and killed all the inhabitants, including babies, children?

4. Can you show me in the Tanach if a campaign of the same ever happened?

5. Does Leviticus 17 explain that the souls atonement is by blood or by some other mode, say, repentance and good works?

1-2) Yes the entirety of the Law still stands. Some part cannot be kept, as there is no Temple and will not be able to be kept until the messiah comes. Nobody keeps all the law, some parts are for the levites, somes for the Jewish man, some for the Jewish woman and some for all. I don’t think you can find anywhere that non-Jews have to eat Kosher or keep the Shabbat for example. Moral laws are to be kept by everybody.

3-4) Irrelevant, as you hold the Tanach as inspired too and would only condemn yourself in the same time. I had some talks about that with atheists,on this blog and yes they have a point…

5) The purpose of Leviticus 17 is about what is permitted to eat and what is not. Leviticus 4 shows other means of atonements, so it cannot say that it is the only mean of atonement. You need the book of Hebrew to understand it that way.

Talking about Kosher, I am vegetarian and do not eat gelatin and other animal by-products. Most Christians would think that I am eating kosher. This is not the case, and sorry to burst all your bubbles here! Cross-contamination with non-Kosher products in the industry or at the restaurant would render most kosher product unclean. For example, your Starbucks coffee that you drink every morning. This looks good, no way to worry. Wrong! Imagine, that there was a nice ham sandwich and the employee washed the plate with a brush, then washed the coffee pot with the same brush. That renders your kosher coffee unkosher. The same is true if you eat beef, where do you think they process the pork next to it? On the same factory as the beef that you think is kosher. I am not even talking about the way they killed the animal, which would automatically render that beef not-kosher. Pizza is a good one too.. No reason to be worried if we eat a vegetarian pizza, isn’t it? What about the pepperoni pizza that is cooked next to it? Or the rennet in the cheese? Welll, if you want to keep Kosher, keep Kosher as the orthodox Jews do. If not, there is no point of keeping kosher, saying you keep kosher or pretending you keep kosher. (not pointing fingers to anybody here,,… I don’t know if any non-jew or Jews keep kosher in an unkosher way!).

I am not keeping kosher, and as a non-jew, I am not saying I am keeping it even if I do not eat pig, shrimp, etc…. This is not keeping kosher anyway…

3) Nowhere. I will not talk about the 2000 years of Christian persecution, I don’t think you agree with what happened by them anyway.
4) somewhere in Judges and 1 Samuel. I talked about it with the atheist in the blog previously. It looks cruel and have not looked into this that much.

“Imagine, that there was a nice ham sandwich and the employee washed the plate with a brush, then washed the coffee pot with the same brush. That renders your kosher coffee unkosher. The same is true if you eat beef, where do you think they process the pork next to it? On the same factory as the beef that you think is kosher.”

RT, questioning this axiom is literally what I believe is =the meaning of the all foods clean passage in Mark 7. If you are trying so hard to keep kosher, but you are “actually not,” due to transfer of impurity from an outside source, that is making kosher into unkosher. A fence that is negating effort to be kosher.

Daniel and his compatriots were served vegetables by gentiles, were they unkosher because of utensils that may have been used by their hosts on other animals?

If the plate is clean and not hot it doesn’t make kosher food unkosher as long as the kosher food is also not hot (onions might be a problem even if not hot). Kosher food cooked in a non-kosher pot becomes non-kosher. If some non-kosher food gets on kosher food you can just rinse it off; if either is hot then usually you need to cut off the part that made contact. Even if some ham got into the coffee pot by accident, as long as it is less than 1/60 of the volume of the coffee, the coffee is still kosher. If I’m wrong about any of this Rabbi B should correct me.

Hello Alan, CR
Its a very simple question.
If the question was asked by yourselves, it would be demanded to be answered. If it wasn’t answered the point would be used as another attempt that Christian couldn’t \ wouldn’t attempt to answer a very simple question.
All you are doing is fudging the reply with distraction.

The question wasn’t aimed at church history, it was very clearly asked from what the Scriptures say.
Simply put, what does the Bible record, nothing else.

To be quite frank, you cannot give an answer from the NT, because it doesn’t say so, If it did, you would find a text to show me. The Tanach does teach such, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Alan, you are right, a pan that would be used for cooking would be render non-kosher, and yes my example was a wee extreme. Still, non-kosher restaurant don’t have milk/meat segregation, and people are not trained to clean properly and not contaminate your coffee pot. I just checked and, yes Starbucks coffee is kosher, and so if they are a tiny bit careful, then yes it should not be a problem to drink it.

Anyway, there is no way to know if really it was kosher or not if it is not certified. There is no “Biblical Kosher” vs “Rabbinic Kosher”. Rabbis have to go to the restaurant and food processing facilities to make sure all the ingredients are kosher and proper sanitation and segregation is done.

RT,
It’s tricky for all the reasons you gave which is why I’ll stick with a certified kosher restaurant. I am not a coffee drinker. But I know some orthodox Jews who drink only certain kinds of coffee at Starbucks. I never looked into it but I trust they have what to rely upon. And I am sure there are other orthodox Jews who wouldn’t even drink coffee at Starbucks. I just don’t know enough about the halachic issues to speak about it.

Alan, I think you are right to stick with kosher restaurants. I worked on several occasions with Rabbi, as I work in the food industry (for Kosher certification and other kosher related issues). In my opinion, there is just too much uncertainty to drink coffee in a non-kosher restaurant. The same holds for non-kosher food. The worst would be non-kosher meat, it is 100% non-kosher, not slaughtered in the proper way and sanitation will never be enough to guarantee it kosher, even if there is no cooking. I don’t think many messianic care, or know, about Kosher rules. They like to say that they follow “Biblical Kosher’, and that’s a good example of failure if you don’t follow the halachic system…

Hello RT
Contextually Leviticus 17 is talking about the abstaining from eating blood. The verse in question then builds on that restriction by stating why, because I, God have given it, blood, as the atonement for YOUR SOUL. He didn’t say the absence of blood atones.
The entire priesthood service was based on the Blood shedding. Other elements were included, yes, but all the services had blood In them, these being the foundation of atonement.

Paul Summers,
I’m not sure what you’re asking about stoning adulterers. Why don’t Jews do it today? The commandment to do it hasn’t been nullified, it’s just been suspended because the conditions to do it don’t exist. Also, “stoning” does not mean to throw stones or rocks until the person dies. It’s built into the Law that we are not responsible for doing commandments that we can’t do due to circumstances beyond our control.

Sure, death. Imagine the antichrist persecuting all Christians until death. True the Bible say that Christians should not fear, but it’s easier said than done. No wonder why end-time is one of the most often talked about subject…

3. Can you find me a text in the NT when Jesus or his disciples went on a national campaign and invaded a country and killed all the inhabitants, including babies, children?

Can you tell me a procedure for how the nation wiuld decide how to handle such an undertaking?

Since Jesus was rejected by the judges in his days

(Even by the likes of Gamaliel who
called for restraint towards the disciples’ teaching,) he had no means of putting together a government, or a standing Army, even though he expressed the intent to slay the wicked in Luke’s gospel 19:27.

Jesus was no Judah Maccabee, nor was he a Bar Kochba. Neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist made any attempts at true governance. They preached a message that said things like “go offer the sacrifice as Moses commanded you,” but then left no details about how one should do the commandment properly. Its as though they thought their own people knew who to talk to or ask about details of observance.

If Jesus really did overturn the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, this would have required a group effort by a large mob of people. See the book titled Revolution in Judea.

Inagine one man trying to halt the wall street exchanges while open, and you get the idea of how impissible this would be for one person.

The area of money exchange and purchase of animals for sacrifices was huge. Think of a continual livestock auction but on a very large scale.

This whole story would have required planning and group orchestration, much like those commands in the Torah would require procedure and orchestration.

Hello CR
To answer your first point, is yes. You fail all the Law. Its a complete unit. Bearing in mind the Law was never given to obtain eschatology salvation anyway.

Secondly, you are correct there was no temple service in the times of Daniel. The blood of Bulls and goats etc never forgave sins in the first place to begin with. The blood only covered the sins, but it never took them away. To prove this The Day of atonement was a yearly repeated process, it was ongoing and never ending. The priest’s themselves had to be atoned prior to the service. So just as much as it was temporary when functional, when at times it was suspended it matted not, especially when Israel were in Babylon as a punishment anyway.
Today of course that service of Temporary atonement has been superseded by God Himself. Jeremiah makes it unmistakeably clear that God will do away with the Old covenant made on tablets of stone. If its not permanent, then of course it has no bearing in a eternal salvation sense.

Of course there was checks, due process to see if one was guilty of breaking a such command. Jesus proves such in John CH 8.

However according to you the Law still operates. People still commit adultery today, so why then, through due process and checks are People not being brought before a court and questioned…. Sorry I forgot the Law doesn’t function because of no temple.
.

But you can’t have a law that states the Law functions with a temple and its services, one works within the other, and then say the Law functions without the services and temple, because one doesn’t need the other to make it function.
When God gave Moses instructions to build the tented tabernacle, the only way the Mosaic Law could function was on the basis that there was a temple for the Law to operate.
There was no Law prior to the tabernacle, but Abraham still had a relationship with God but He did sacrifice animals without a temple.

Hello Alan
If the conditions don’t exist, as you state, for the punishment to be seen through, then of course the Very Law itself cannot exist can it. Because you need a temple with ALL its Mosaic commands for it to operate.
You are using complete non Scriptural teachings, being squeezed in by yourself justifying your own view.
If Adultery still stands, which it does, unless you are completely in denial, and if the Law still stands, which you say does, then one must be dealt with according to the other. When and who ever commanded Israel to keep Kosher law but forget Marital Law, either with or without a temple???

Paul,
You wrote: “The blood of Bulls and goats etc never forgave sins in the first place to begin with. The blood only covered the sins, but it never took them away. ”

Does this mean you hold that “atonement” means “covering the sins” and “forgiveness” means “taking away the sins”? And that nothing atones except for blood?

See Deuteronomy 30:1-10 and 1 Kings 8:22-53 – both of these passages show clearly that even when there is no Temple and even when the Jewish people are in exile, if we turn from our sins and keep the commandments that apply in exile, then God will forgive our sins and redeem us. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 30 shows that after we will be redeemed we will go back to keeping all of the commandments and this includes sacrifices.

Look at Deut 30 v 1. Basically its a promise of return to God from a position of apostasy. That curse was given because of the previous conditions. CH 28 v64.
So the present conditions of Israel is based presently on what??

What does v 63b say?
That’s not a church promise, but a God of Israel promise. Just food for thought.

1 Kings 8 – from Solomon’s prayer upon the inauguration of the Temple:

46 If they sin against Thee–for there is no man that sinneth not (THEN JESUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MAN EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY HE WAS 100% MAN AND 100% god) –and Thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto the land of the enemy, far off or near; 47 yet if they take it to heart in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn back [DO TESHUVA FROM THEIR SINS], and make supplication unto Thee in the land of them that carried them captive [THEY ARE IN EXILE], saying: WE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE DONE INIQUITOUSLY, WE HAVE DEALT WICKEDLY; 48 if they return unto Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies [IN EXILE THEY FORSAKE THEIR SINS AND RETURN TO LISTENING TO GOD’S COMMANDMENTS], who carried them captive, and pray unto Thee toward their land, which Thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which Thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for Thy name; 49 then hear Thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and maintain their cause; 50 and FORGIVE Thy people who have sinned against Thee, and ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS wherein they have transgressed against Thee; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them; 51 for they are Thy people, and Thine inheritance, which Thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron; 52 that Thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of Thy servant, and unto the supplication of Thy people Israel, to hearken unto them whensoever they cry unto Thee. 53 For Thou didst set them apart from among all the peoples of the earth, to be Thine inheritance, as Thou didst speak by the hand of Moses Thy servant, when Thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD.’
——————–

Paul,
You would have to say that King Solomon did not understand the Torah, that he did not understand Deuteronomy 30 which says the same thing he is saying here – that teshuva means to stop doing all kinds of sins – idolatry, murder, stealing, harming people physically and emotionally, sexual sins – as it says above ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS – WE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE DONE INIQUITOUSLY, WE HAVE DEALT WICKEDLY – teshuva means to take it to heart and to forsake all of the sins between man and God and between man and his fellow, and then TO RETURN TO LISTENING TO GOD’S COMMANDMENTS THAT ARE IN OUR POWER TO DO – if we do this, God FORGIVES US!

You are saying that Solomon and Deuteronomy 30 are actually saying, “In order for Me (God) to forgive you, YOU NEED TO BELIEVE that I am a trinity and that I will send Messiah who is both Myself and my son whose spilled blood will atone for your sins. In order for Me, to forgive you, you need to believe this.” Paul, this is what you are saying these texts mean!

Ezekiel 18 is crystal clear that the sins God wants us to do teshuva for are not just idolatry but also and primary all of the ways we can hurt our fellow human beings! Teshuva just from idolatry IS NOT THE TESHUVA THAT WILL MAKE US RIGHT AGAIN WITH GOD! Read Ezekiel 18, it is crystal clear!

According to Paul Summers, Ezekiel is a liar! According to him, the teshuva that Hashem requires for us to be right with him is for us TO BELIEVE IN THE SPILLED BLOOD OF JESUS. This is the teshuva of Tanakh according to Paul Summers!

Paul you add your own interpretation to the text. It does not talk about Jesus, or that you have to accept Jesus to return to the L-rd. You arrive with the conclusion first, and then try to find text that fits your theory. This is the basis of a bad experiment and the perfect way of finding a faulty conclusion.

Based on what you are ssying, you have made G-d into a liar who changed his mind.

You say the law via the blood of bulls covered sin, but didn’t and couldnt forgive sin.

You further said that a lack of temple in Daniel’s time was irrelevant, because the sacrifices themselves were irrelevant in terms of salvation.

You do realize you have put the lie on G-d who commanded these things and told Israel that they were capable of doing them?

G-d says that man can master his evil inclination.

G-d says the Torah is not too difficult to keep.

G-d himself allowed the poor to substitute a grain offering if an animal was beyond their ability.

You are assuming that G-d cannot firgive sins without cosmic savior blood because of the book of Hebrews, not because you are reading the law taken as a unit.

Your entire premise rests on a book that had its canonicity questioned by many early Christians. Why should Jews trust this book’s ideas when you also say to read the law as a unit?

If you believe Torah has the elements of a legal system like due process, it stands to reason that a legislative body existed in order to try court cases? To be able to examine a given transgression and determine whether a capital crime or misdomeaner had actually occurred?

For example, lets say you go on an outing with a young lady and 3 of her friends. It goes well, at 1st, so you date for a few months. After a while, the relationship goes south.

Next thing you know, the girl accuses you of misconduct, and her 3 friends back up the story.

Is it a textbook case of fornication, or a capital crime, or is it a misdomeaner that requires in depth analysis and proportional punishment?

It stands to reason that if Israel is in exile, they dont have full autonamy to let their own law function as it would in their homeland.

Apparently, in your view, Torah must always be carried out with its strictest corporal punishments, and not via reason and evidence?

If you believe the law is one unit, then please read it as a lone unit before you start importing Christian theological assumptions.

If G-d was able to pardon Daniel’s generation by covering the sins of the generation without a temple, he is at least functionally capable of forgiving without shedding blood.

You say that Jeremiah’s New Covenant is unambiguously a different covenant. Jeremiah tells you that the covenant gets written on your heart. That is the sense in which this covenant is new.

What is new about the new covenant is that the will to violate the law ends. As you are aware, Christians under their gospel still violate G-d’s law quite a lot, and they go around the world saying “know the lord,” so the gospels themselves cant really be the new covenant of Jeremiah.

As I said, a reading of Jeremiah that fits the context as well is a renewed covenant that is truly “new” in the sense that in this covenant the law of G-d is not violated, and you wont need to teach your neighbor to know the lord as Moses had to do in his covenant.

If the law was never meant for atonment, grace, forgiveness, and love, why is it called the covenant of love in Deuteronomy 7?

In what meaningfull sense is this rigid religion caricature you have of an “old testament” Judaism actually pointing to the marshmallow rose scented path of the New Testament?

No Jew would read the Tanakh as being so rigid as you seem to think. Judaism has a legal system.

We’ve come full circle and are now back to Hebrews, where this all began. As I stated previously, Hebrews does not teach “superior human/godman blood vs inferior goats blood as a means of atonement”. When it says “take away sins” it is speaking of the sin of this world which is people SINNING. It takes it away by the indwelling of Jesus by the his spirit, and Hebrews even claims this “new covenant based on better promises” to be the DIRECT fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that the Torah will be written on the heart and God will cause everyone to do His commandments.

But if Hebrews IS talking about this “taking away of sins” not being possible through animal or meal offerings, then their entire argument for Jesus’ death is shot down. The Christian interpretation of the sacrificial system is that when the “sinner” laid his hand on the animal his sins were transferred to the animal and the animal is killed with the sinner’s sins upon it and not the sinner. The animal ( or handful of flour/oil batter) died in the sinner’s place, taking his punishment upon itself. This absolutely implies sins being “taken away”, and not just “blood ( or flour and oil) temporarily covering”. Likewise, Christianity teaches that the sin of world was “transferred” to Jesus and he died in our place. The sacrificial system is used as a direct foreshadowing of this event. So if transferring sin to another thing and that thing being destroyed in your place does not take away sins, then Jesus’ death is no more effectual than the death of a bull, goat or flour batter because the sins were either transferred away from the sinner or they weren’t.

If this is not the case, then I need an explanation as to why Christianity taught this for two millenia.

bible819 Judaism spread everywhere – it is Christianity that is irrelevant – let me explain The idea of One God – spread everywhere The idea that this God loves justice and mercy – spread everywhere Those two ideas are ideas that the Church helped spread – but those are not Christian ideas Here are some ideas that the Church opposes but they still spread everywhere That this world is a beautiful place and that it is an expression of God’s love for us That human actions can be pleasing in the eyes of God in the sense of making the world a better place That all humans are equal before the One God who created us all That God is fair and that He can be found in our sense of fairness That God doesn’t expect us to be perfect – just to be decent human beings Those are Jewish ideas that are ever relevant Here are the Christian ideas that lost their relevance as soon as the Church lost power That this world is a miserable place That human activity is worthless That some humans are more exalted than others (priests, aristocracy, royalty) That God is not fair and that the human sense of fairness is from the devil That God rejects any human being that is not perfect

Hi CR
You have said a lot there, unfortunately none of it is based on Mosiac Law or Bible teachings. At best it is Rabbinical teaching loosely based on scripture.

You like others keep on making odd statements that keep on mis quoting either NT teachings or just putting your words into the statements presented.

Deut does of course state about Gods promise to Israel, that is correct, but those promised blessings are only brought forth if Israel abides in Gods love, ie to follow His ways. The promises are based on obedience not disobedience..

The blood of animals was only a down payment, as it were, to cover, atone, sins.

A covenant is a new covenant. The text doesn’t say a renewed covenant. The text is very simple and basic.
The text talking about not teaching ones neighbour is in reference to the Jews in the Messianic Kingdom. There won’t be a Mosaic then, as now, because all the Law was fulfilled by Yeshua. Of course believing Jews will have the salvation truth of the Law, not needing it to be taught.

1. Is blood the only thing that atones?
2. The Tanakh shows that Hashem doesn’t just atone, but also forgives and returns to us in response to the Jewish people’s turning from sin and listening to his voice to do the commandments in exile. Why do you say this is impossible?

“If the conditions don’t exist, as you state, for the punishment to be seen through, then of course the Very Law itself cannot exist can it. Because you need a temple with ALL its Mosaic commands for it to operate.
You are using complete non Scriptural teachings, being squeezed in by yourself justifying your own view.
If Adultery still stands, which it does, unless you are completely in denial, and if the Law still stands, which you say does, then one must be dealt with according to the other. When and who ever commanded Israel to keep Kosher law but forget Marital Law, either with or without a temple???

Texts please!”

Paul,
You said I am “using complete non Scriptural teachings, being squeezed in by yourself justifying your own view.” And you asked me for “Texts please!”

Yesterday I provided you the texts together with a short explanation. I am looking forward to your reply.

Hello Alan
I think you are alluding to atonement in regard to grain, flour offering, I could be wrong??
These offerings were still given on the foundation of blood. They were never given without, or instead of. Plus these were gift offerings “korban minchah”

The offer was always in contact with blood.

So while the gift or present was bloodless, it was always given with blood.

Lev 23 9~14
Num 15 1~16
Ezra 7 ~17

First the burnt offering was given, then the gift placed on top.

I don’t disagree that Israel will one day return while in exile, but it will not be through the Law, it will be until Israel plead for Messiahs return.
Psalm 80, particularly looking at v 17

Bible819,
Judaism has been relevant to the Jews and to those who have joined them for 1300 years before Jesus and 2000 years and counting after Jesus. Isaiah 42:41 – “Hashem desired for the sake of [Israel’s] righteousness that the Torah be made great and glorious.”

Paul Summers If you are such a stickler for the law – then how do you believe in a sacrifice that is not sanctioned by Leviticus 17:11? (Lev. 17:11 speaks of blood on the altar – nowhere else) 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

Paul, do you remember that I asked you if you could be wrong about Jesus? And you answered no. It only shows in your answers. If we ask you if blood is the only mean of forgiveness, you will answer yes, even if the Tanach shows otherwise. Why, because you already made your mind. When I ask you why human blood can be an acceptable sacrifice, you just ignore my comment. Why? Because there is no arguments in your favor and you still want to stick to your belief. You will also have to ignore Rabbi Blumenthal comment, because Jesus was not sacrificed on the altar. You have nothing to back yourself up, nada! You are stock on a corner with all the evidences of the world that your whole worldview makes no sense scripturally speaking. There is no nice way of saying that all you believe is a lie. Your premises (that Jesus was god/messiah) was wrong and the evidences show that. Your only hope is to change subject each time we corner you. You have 0 prophecies, your sacrifice is an abomination to G-d. You worship a foreign G-d, because G-d is not a man, his is ONE (not three) and his forbids us to worship any of his creature (hosts of heaven). On top of that, you are still stuck with sins even if the NT tries to convince you that you will be sinless in the spirit. What else do you need to stop deceiving yourself?

I challenge you to answer Rabbi Blumenthal’s question and not divert the subject. If you can, I will reconsider Christianity.

I’m not sure you’re making a strong point for Christianity.
1. Christianity is spreading faster than Judaism, hence Christianity is better than Judaism.
Well, why stop there, use same logic for the next step:
2. Islam is spreading faster than Christianity, hence Islam is better than Christianity.
Obviously that’s a flawed logic.

Besides, why would many more people join Israel now as compared to BCE times? Where is a scriptural support for this thinking?
I don’t know where people get the idea that millions and millions are going to be in the end times in Jerusalem. That is supposed to be a relatively small remnant of Jews and gentiles. Quality over quantity.

As a matter of fact most of the world will come to fight against them. If anything, the “popularity” of some religion might be an indicator that it’s exactly the opposite of what God considers good.

You didn’t read what was written.
To Respond to what you posted:
God used Israel as an Example to Show his Greatness.
Both Israel and Eygpt worshiped the Golden Calf.
No difference.
Ok.
Now. as to popularity:
Islam didn’t start in Israel.
Yeshua did, and many believe this Hebrew to be the 1 God Made messiah.
As Israel is waiting for a Savior. We believe, most of Israel missed it.
Christians spread salvation to the world, and have no inclination to destroy Israel.
Yeshua didn’t teach us to do so.
The old testament is spread BC of Christians.
Judaism doesn’t spread salvation but is waiting for the Messiah.

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Islam did not start in Israel, but it also accepts “Old testament”. As for Christianity, it is not spreading the word from the Torah, it’s spreading the word of a “new covenant” that supersedes Torah, very much like Islam. At least that’s true for the most popular forms of Christianity.
Israel is supposed to be a light to the nations in one way: observe God’s commandments, for that be blessed and hence attract other people to do the same.
If Christianity did such a great job of spreading true word of God, how come whole world will attack Jerusalem in the end times?

You say Judaism has done nothing. You must be ignorant of all that Jews have done for the world it seems to me. Not least of which is providing a basis for your own religion. If Jews are irrelevant, Jesus is not relevant.

If Judaism is irrelevant to you, you should leave this blog and quit preaching here.

Also, Christians are so damn sure of their own superiority that they have indoctrinated literally millions of people to believe that the Jews have nothing of value to teach or say. Muslims have made the same error.

You cant teach people with crosses stuck in their ears.

To put it bluntly, what value is there in attempting teaching Judaism to people like you when Christians like you claim there is nothing at all to learn from Jews?

If Christianity is so great, just go along your merry way to heaven, and wipe the dust from your feet. Leave the Jews alone.

If your deity expects perfection, I hope he isnt so fickle as to write you off when you dont meet his standards either.

FYI If Christians are great and Jews are so irrelevant, where in heaven’s name is your man god? Is he sleeping waiting for Christians to learn some humility?

So while the gift or present was bloodless, it was always given with blood.”

What website did you cut and paste this lie from? You only mentioned three meal offerings which accompanied blood offerings and then said meal offerings were ALWAYS given with blood! But there are several other meal offerings that have no association with meat offerings. Several of the meal offerings had no contact with blood whatsoever, and in fact were sometimes burned in a different place so they WOULD NOT contact blood! The Voluntary, Sotah’s, Kohen’s and Sinner’s meal offerings all had no contact with blood! The sinner’s offering of Kometz was touched to the Southwestern corner of the outer altar and burned on the outer altar. THE SINNER’S MEAL OFFERING WAS NOT MADE IN ASSOCIATION WITH BLOOD IN ANY WAY!

11 But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.

12 And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.

13 And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as the meal-offering.

Paul, can you show us where in the Tanach human blood can remove sins? You are comparing clean blood with unclean blood. Can you also show us where a beaten animal would be an acceptable sacrifice? Or, when can a sacrifice can be brought outside of the temple and still be good for remission of sins? Or maybe, can you show us where it was OK to martyrize an animal to death and still be OK for G-d as a sacrifice? Would G-d has pleasure if we would bring such a sacrifice to him? Why Jesus is different?

Slightly better, but John was descendant of David from his mother’s lineage, which would not count if he would ever have wanted to be king. You cannot be from two lines, or you are from Levi, or you are from Judah. Lineage is from the father side. Jesus was a Jews (mother side) but was not from the tribe of Judah.

Slightly better, but John was descendant of David from his mother’s lineage, which would not count if he would ever have wanted to be king.

Exactly. It wouldn’t work for Jesus or John without a paternal link, but it is interesting that using Christianity’s own prophetic types and shadows approach would make the baptist a better fit than Jesus.

now I don’t think jc is claiming equality with god or saying he has power to forgive because he has gods attribute of forgiveness in him. He uses the passive as if the pnuema which went into him at baptism told him “he is forgiven”
In mark, jc is clearly controlled by the pnuema and when people have no faith jc is a powerless item. In mark, power can be taken out of JC WITHOUT his KNOWLEDGE

so when mark says, son of man has power to forgive, all it means is power to say “you are forgiven” not ” I forgive you”

So god controls and authorises jc, according to mark

if mark really thought that what jc did was blasphemy, he would have said “how could god blaspheme god” like he has jc say,” how can Satan cast out Satan”

1. G-d can impart his spirit to a group of people.
2. G-d can take on human form
3. G-d doesnt desire human righteousness
4. G-d sent Jesus to die for the sins of others.

While these ideas may be possible in Torah, (for sake of argument,) the implications of such ideas as understood by Christianity are antithetical to the Torah outlook.

Christian tradition itself recognized what a slippery slope beliefs like these rested on. Ancient Christians unserstood the evils such beliefs could bring. They knew of the dangers via a tradition they called antichrist.

Ancient Christians knew that in ancient times, Caesar himself was called the son of a god, (because Caesar was the son of the deified previous emperor.)

Ancient Christians knew that in amcient Rome, pagans sacrificed to the emperor in part, to thank him for the Pax Romana, ie Roman peace. Ancient Romans thanked Caesar because his grace brought them all their daily sustenance. Quite literally, some Romans would only have food if the state threw a festival via Caesar.

Ancient Christians knew that Caesar was called Pontifex Maximus, and that he was entrusted with the spiritual wellfare of the Roman people.

Ancient Christians called Caesar the Anti Christ, and for good reason. NO HUMAN BEING, NO SON OF MAN SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED AS DIVINE.

ANCIENT CHRISTIANS KNEW THE DANGERSVOF CALLING A MAN DIVINE, BUT THEY MADE EXCUSES FOR WHY IT WAS OK FOR JESUS.

They chanted “man does not live by bread alone, but hy every word that proceeds from the mouth of G-d…EVERY WORD EXCEPT ISRAEL’S COMMANDMENTS.

When confronted by Shabbatai Tzvi (another Jew who was declared G-d incarnate by his students,) the Christians admonished his followers saying,

“This man’s alleged miracles prove nothing. Even demons do miracles.”

They said, “Even if Shabbatai Tzvi rose from death we would not follow, because false messiahs can do miracles, leading astray even the elect.”

1. He is a human who wants the world to see him as G-d and he forces them to serve him.

2. He does miracles which Christians (in this case only) say does not count for evidence.

3. The anti Christ is healed from a deadly wound which Christians call deception.

When Christians were confronted with Shabbatai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, Eva Frank, Rebbe Nachman, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and when some crazy students in these movements called these people Christ, or “G-d in a body,” The Church cried “you are decieved! NO MAN CAN BE G-D!”

While the Church would call anyone from Nero Caesar to Shabbatai Tzvi a charlatan for claiming to be a miracle working god man,

THEY ALWAYS MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR JESUS, EVEN WHEN THEY CLAIM IN EVERY OTHER CASE THIS IS IDOLATRY!

NEVER DO CHRISTIANS HEAR THEIR JEWISH BRETHREN WHEN THEY SCREAM:

THESE BELIEFS ARE NEVER CONSISTENT WITH TORAH. NOT FOR SHABBATAI TZVI, NOT FOR THE REBBE, AND NOT FOR JESUS EITHER!

IF G-d became flesh and imparted his spirit to a select group of followers, IT BREEDS A SITUATION WHERE DEUTERONOMY 4 AND 13 ARE VIOLATED IN ALL INSTANCES IT IS ALLEGED TO OCCUR.

The Christian Bible allows for Jesus what it (and Torah) disallows FOR EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON.

WHEN THE GENTILES TRIED TO WORSHIP PAUL AS A god IN FLESH,

HE TORE HIS GARMENT. A JEW TEARS HIS CLOTHES FOR MOURNING AND BLASPHEMY.

DECLARING A BEING OF FLESH DIVINE, A MEMBER OF THE HOST DIVINE, IS BLASPHEMY.

Hello Alan
To answer your question, I think we should go back and refer to the original statement that I made in regarding blood on the altar, and blood being the foundational aspect of atonement. I appreciate that the first statement sounded like a non blood offering literally touched the blood, which I then corrected. But I did reaffirm what I actually meant, that the non blood offering or gift was in direct conjuction with the altar and blood.

When you stated the Lev ch 5 statement, you have in my opinion still missed the point.
If you read the verses 11, 12, 13, entirely on their own and isolate the meaning in context, you will render the meaning disproportionately.

If you read v 12 the offering is still to be burnt as ACCORDING TO THE OFFERINGS MADE BY FIRE. The offering is a memorial directly linking it to the either the birds or a lamb blood. There couldnt be a bloodless offering unless there was already a Law of blood attaching the bloodless gift. In other words no blood, no offering, because it is a, rememberance, mention, mindful memorial.

You are correct that this offering is bloodless, that is obviously true. Ive never seen fine flour that bleeds.
But this offering is very isolated in context due to the finance circumstances of the giver, but God does state that the offering is on behalf of the norm, which given the texts one shouldnt run away with a slight difference of obligation to render the main teachings of Scripture. As Lev ch 17 clearly states. It is the Blood that atones, not flour, nothing else.

If for example there are 99 sayings of do one thing this way, and there is 1 saying that says do it differently in the same situation, because the circumstances are different, the 99 should always have the priority. The 1 should be taken in isolation when the said circumstances arise.

So technically you are correct, scripturally you are still missing the point.

If it was as you say, then Lev ch 17 is a false statement, which of course it isnt.

Paul Summers The offerings made by fire include flour offerings – and Leviticus 17:11 is only saying that of the animal it is the blood that atones – it is not addressing repentance But if yoru read in Lev 17:11 is right than it only atones on the altar – how would blood outside the altar atone? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

Hello YPF
Yes of course the blood atones on the Altar as per scripture in regard to the Law.
But of course the altar itself isn’t making the atonement, its the blood.

And of course the Altars ultimate place of position was within the temple, which of course initially wasn’t always situated within Jerusalem itself.
So we can conclude that physical geophysical features do not restrict the service.
Also as with Adam, Job, Noah, Abraham etc.
Firstly I think one needs to consider that of course Israel, even the disciples had no knowledge that Jesus death was THE sacrifice. As far as Israel were concerned, His death was for sin, not on behalf of sin. Israels death penalties were not crucifixion.
So has far as Israel was concerned His death was not sacrificial on the basis of the Law.

As the Law States the Altar is for sacrifice. All the animals to be brought to it. As scripture states the animals are to be perfect, without spot. The animals are not cursed.

The Bible also says that cursed is the man who hangs on a tree. Of course that person being punished for his sins. But the difference of Christ Death is not for His sins, but for the worlds. He became, on sins behalf, cursed for the sake of sin. Animals are received and approved by man for the atonement. Christ was rejected and disapproved by man, but received and was well pleasing to His Father in Heaven.

Jesus was put to death in open public shame. The cross being the ideal tool of death.

The real deal breaker is That God Himself died to pay the penalty, not a animal.

Yes, I need it Paul. Where does the Hebrew Bible require you to believe in the man-god not to be hearted. So, as per the Hebrew Bible, Jews who don’t believe in Jesus are all stubborn? Find me the verse that say that!

I showed you this flour-only sin offering was COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF BLOOD – NO BLOOD AND NO ALLOWED.

You admitted: “You are correct that this offering is bloodless, that is obviously true. Ive never seen fine flour that bleeds.”

This flour-only sin offering helped to obtain atonement and forgiveness for the penitent WITHOUT BLOOD and WITHOUT CONTACT WITH BLOOD. You are trying to make a homiletical teaching to connect this bloodless offering to blood and to therefore say that blood is required. This may be a homiletical teaching but in reality, the penitent here gets atonement and forgiveness even if NO BLOOD WAS EVER SPILLED IN THE TEMPLE. THIS OFFERING STANDS ON ITS OWN WITHOUT BEING DEPENDENT ON ANY OTHER OFFERING. Do you not understand this?

You wrote: ““Of course if I am in error I will say so. Could you please show me.”

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.”

The context and main message of chapter 17 is to tell the Children of Israel to bring their offerings only to the Tabernacle/Temple and nowhere else. While the Torah is teaching about the laws of offerings it mentions another law that is tangentially related to offerings – that it is forbidden to eat blood. And in verse 11 the Torah lets us know why it is forbidden.

Verse 11 is not saying that blood is the only thing in the entire world that makes atonement. What it is saying is that the part of the animal that makes atonement is the blood. But there are other things that secure atonement/forgiveness as we have seen in Deut. 30, 1 Kings 8:22-51, Ezekiel 18, etc… Let’s say I were to serve an exotic piece of fruit to a friend who is a medical doctor, but the seeds which look edible are actually a powerful drug that alleviates asthma and should not be eaten. I would tell my doctor guest not to eat the seeds because we will use them later to make a drug that helps people with asthma breath better. Would my guest understand from my words that the only medicine in the world for asthma is the seeds from this fruit? Likewise with the Torah – someone who is familiar with Tanakh knows there are multiple ways to gain atonement/forgiveness from Hashem and that the one He WANTS THE MOST FROM US IS TESHUVA FROM OUR EVIL DEEDS MUCH MORE THAN OFFERINGS OF BLOOD OR FLOUR.

Here’s another way to gain atonement/forgiveness – Proverbs 16:6 – “Through kindness and truth iniquity is atoned; and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.” Doing kindness and being truthful are another way to gain atonement/forgiveness for our sins.

Hi Alan, Dina
I’m not saying or ever said that a contrite heart, repentance, praying, etc do not bring one closer to God. All these acts, done with the correct sincere motives, will of course bring one closer to God in a personal relationship with Him.
All bad actions, sins etc have to be confronted. Sins done in ignorance also. But one still needs to acknowledge the sin and repent of it.
It doesn’t matter how you spin this, the very basic fact remains that all repentance will still need blood to carry the statute through.

All the texts that you quoted are simply texts saying I will atone your sins if you acknowledge them, based on the Law, The Law that stipulates blood.
You are just ignoring the basic foundation of your Law.

1 Kings CH 8 v 62.
It clearly says “Then”
Then what???
Then once the prayer and repentance, request etc was given, The King and all Israel offered Him sacrifices. As per the Law.
You cannot have a sacrifice with no faithful heart set, it would be just a outwardly hypocritical act.

Isaiah CH 1. Covers this, with the pleading from God to return, then the feasts etc will be a delight and acceptable again.

So to summarise, repentance, to change ones mind from sin or a sin, must be truthfully felt, as one physically gives the offering.

Hi Alan
I was technically wrong, but scripturally correct.
Lev CH 17 Still stands. The entire Law, and All its ordinances were situated and established on this very text.
No sacrificial service of any description were held without the blood. If it was in any other way, the texts would say so.

Paul,
Please tell me the truth – do you read what I wrote? You know, about the exotic fruit etc.?
Did you read what I wrote about the flour-sin offering not only requiring no blood but forbidding blood to be involved?

Hi Alan
I do of course try and read all responses, in this case I do my best to read yours. I personally find your questions very interesting.

Of course we have different opinions. But that’s not to say I’m not reading you.

Just to ask ref your last text.
You stated that Blood was forbidden in Flour. Not sure were this is stated?

I’m reading no oil or no frankincense.
Before that it says “if he is not able”. I don’t see the former as a direct command, more of a guide due to financial restraints than a demand, the latter is a strict observation?

Just to clear up any misunderstandings,
v13 who is actually forgiving, God, or the priest?

Paul,
If you say you read my comments to you then I believe you.
I shoudnt have said that “blood is not even allowed” because this is not explicit in the text. I was thinking of the Oral Torah explanation received from Moses that blood mixed in would invalidate the offering but I would have to look this up to be sure. So forget about this statement. I should have left it at “not required”.
Before you even found Lev. 11:17 did you already believe from reading the NT that one can only approach G-d through animal blood or Jesus’ blood?

V13 – only God atones and forgives. The priest is like a doctor working on a patient. God wants us to do a physical action sometimes as part of the healing or atonement process but the healing and atonement are only from Him. You take a pill but it isn’t the pill that is healing you, it is God who send the healing by way of the physical action.